Saturday, 4 February 2017

ADDITIONS TO FORMAL COMPLAINT AGAINST TEMPORARY SUPERINTENDENT JOHN LAING, PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS DEPARTMENT, POLICE SCOTLAND, FOR MISCONDUCT IN SCOTTISH ENTERPRISE FRAUD CASE


Mr Eddie Cairns

72 Hillhouse Street

GLASGOW G21 4HP

3 February 2017                 

 

 

Mr John Laing

Temporary Superintendent

Professional Standards Department

Police Scotland

PO Box 21184

ALLOA FK10 9DE

 

 

Dear Mr Laing,

COMPLAINT

I want to add the following to my complaint raised against you on 1 February 2017:

 

In recent months I provided information and documentary evidence to the police, including directly to yourself, which expose your position detailed in your letter to me dated 18 January 2017 as deliberately dishonest and corrupt.

In your letter dated 18 January 2017 you made false statements about complaints made by me having supposedly been fully investigated and concluded, and externally scrutinised. In addition, you stated that you do not agree that the information in question is inaccurate, and that you will not take any action.

In this case you have inexplicably disregarded, contradicted and concealed material evidence and you have failed to investigate properly very serious allegations of falsehoods about me held and processed by Police Scotland. You have refused to take any action to address persistent failures by the police to act honestly in accordance with professional standards.

Important letters I either submitted directly to the police or copied to the police in this case are reproduced below in support of my allegations against you. The police have already been provided with the documentary evidence to which references are made in the reproduced letters:

 

My letter dated 4 June 2016

Mr E Cairns

72 Hillhouse Street

GLASGOW G21 4HP

4 June 2016

 

 

The Professional Standards Department

Police Headquarters Scotland

P.O. Box 21184

ALLOA FK10 9DE

 

 

Dear Sir or Madam,

DCI Kenneth Thomson sent me a letter dated 31 May 2016 which I believe does not comply with applicable professional standards.

 

Extracts from the letter are listed below in italics for convenience and I have added my comments in plain type.

 

 

1.          ‘I refer to your letter dated 18th January 2016 addressed to Mr Milne regarding Enterprise Ayrshire/Scottish Enterprise.’

 

Mr Milne wrote to me on 21 January 2016 including the following:

 

‘Dear Mr Cairns’

‘Ref – SPA0608’

‘I am writing in response to your following emails dated;’

‘1)    18 January 2016 - relating to the newly discovered bank statement dated 24 August 1993 in the name of Gary Tracey.’

 ‘..............’

‘The SPA and Police Scotland are two separate public bodies.’

‘In relation to your email dated 18 January, may I advise you that the SPA Complaints Team has no investigative role, any enquiries that you have relating to a request for a re-investigation should be referred to Police Scotland.’

Thereafter I wrote several letters directly to Police Scotland and provided significantly more documentary evidence of criminality that had either not been adequately considered or not considered at all by the Police previously. These are the letters to which Mr Thomson ought to have made reference, not my letter to Mr Milne.

By focusing upon my letter to Mr Milne at the SPA, and by quoting reference SPA0608, Mr Thomson has omitted to address all the other documents provided for consideration.

Separately, Mr Thomson’s reference to Mr Milne and SPA0608 indicates that he knew I had an ongoing complaint about a higher ranking officer in his chain of command.

In those circumstances Mr Thomson was rendered insufficiently impartial to handle my case.

 

2.         ‘In respect of the first point, you have implied that you have located a crucial document, ‘new evidence’ which has either not been adequately considered or not considered at all by the Police.’

This is correct but Mr Thomson then refers to civil actions in which this document was included along with many other items of evidence as if this changed the position in respect of a police review of alleged criminality based upon this crucial document and several other items of evidence that had either not been adequately considered or not considered at all by the Police previously.

The document which was produced to DS Adams and DC Stewart as Item 60 was the Royal Bank of Scotland confirmation of a £187,000 deposit to account 00151450 in the name of Gary Tracey dated 1 July 1993.

If the £187,000 that appears to have been held in the name of Mr Tracey had really been held in the name of Enterprise Ayrshire, as was suggested by Mr Adams at our meeting on 4 April 2016 as a possibility, and according to Mr Thomson’s letter, it would have been included in the company’s balance sheet as at 2 July 1993. 

 

But the SE report, Item 6, and the extract from my reconciliation at 2 July 1993, Item 31, both confirm that £187,069 was missing from the company’s balance sheet at 2 July 1993.    

 

Where was this money at 2 July 1993 and for several weeks thereafter? It was in the hands of Mr Tracey at least until 24 August 1993 as recorded in Item 4.

 

This deposit was MATURING at 2 AUG 1993, which was one calendar month and one day after the date of the deposit. 

 

Therefore according to the terms of the account as shown in Item 60 this money was actually committed in the name of Mr Tracey until 4 September 1993.

 

The money was deposited again into the same account on 3 August 1993 as confirmed with reference to Item 4, which means that it did not mature until 4 September 1993, according to the terms shown in Item 60. But the ERDF receipt was to have been transferred to Scottish Enterprise during the July 1993 accounting period according to the operating contract. The accounts would normally be finalised around the middle of the following month, in this case around the middle of August 1993.

 

This evidence alone proves that the financial irregularities were fraudulent. Excluding the cash from the accounts was the deception that brought about the practical result of making the cash available to be taken control of without the owners’ consent, in other words without the general public’s consent as laid down in the laws applicable to this public authority, and thereby gaining interest that otherwise would not be gained, at the expense of UK taxpayers.

 

Mr Andrew Downie and Mr Gary Tracey took control of this public money beyond what was lawful. Taxpayers’ cash was indeed effectively stolen thereby.  

 

 

3.          ‘DS Adams and DC Stewart have conducted a review and assessment of the reported ‘new evidence.’ 

On the contrary, the letter from Mr Thomson goes on to reveal that rather than conducting a review and assessment of the evidence I provided that had either not been adequately considered or not considered at all by the Police previously, instead the police put considerable effort into investigating civil actions I had raised years ago.

 

In view of the detailed references to these civil actions contained in Mr Thomson’s letter, the police have beyond reasonable doubt colluded with Scottish Enterprise and their solicitors in a disgraceful attempt to undermine my credibility, to conceal material evidence, to avoid carrying out a proper investigation into alleged criminality and to pervert the course of justice.

 

Mr Thomson’s assertions that two of the documents submitted as evidence to the police were already included amongst productions in civil actions are entirely irrelevant. The implied suggestion that this somehow fulfilled the police’s responsibility to investigate evidence of alleged criminality that had either not been adequately considered or not considered at all by the Police is complete nonsense. The civil actions had nothing to do with the police. They were actions for damages, not criminal proceedings.

 

Since DS Adams and DC Stewart appear not to have carried out an adequate investigation into alleged criminality taking into consideration the evidence I submitted that had either not been adequately considered or not considered at all by the Police, beyond reasonable doubt they acted corruptly in order to cover for ACC Nicolson, a higher ranking officer in their chain of command, who is known to them to have been previously involved in the Scottish Enterprise case and who is alleged to have conspired to pervert the course of justice.

 

Available evidence indicates that the police and Scottish Enterprise have already colluded and interfered in civil actions and other legal proceedings unlawfully and unfairly in order to harm me and pervert the course of justice as detailed further on below.

 

 

4.          ‘In January 2004, Anderson Fyfe Solicitors, your legal representatives wrote

to Jackie Edwards c/o Scottish Enterprise.’

 

This is a completely false statement which reveals unacceptable carelessness by DCI Kenneth Thomson, DS Adams and DC Stewart in this matter.

Anderson Fyfe were never my legal representatives. They always acted for my opponents, including Scottish Enterprise.

However, Mr Thomson’s reference to a letter from Anderson Fyfe to Scottish Enterprise further supports a reasonable suspicion that the police have again colluded with Scottish Enterprise and their solicitors in a disgraceful attempt to undermine my credibility, to conceal material evidence, to avoid carrying out a proper investigation into alleged criminality and to pervert the course of justice.

 

5.          ‘Further to this, a writ was raised by you, reference A3641/2003, supported by multiple documents which included a ‘Fifth Inventory of Productions’. Within these documents is a copy of the RBS bank statement titled ‘Strictly Private and Confidential, Gary Tracey c/o Enterprise Ayrshire.’

The Fifth Inventory of Productions referred to above in fact contained only one item, the original Scottish Enterprise report, signed by the Scottish Enterprise investigating accountant and countersigned by DS William Watters himself, the police officer in charge of the initial police investigation.

A rather obvious question arises. Why did DCI Thomson, DS Adams and DC Stewart not confront Scottish Enterprise on the important matter of several blatant defects apparent in this report? The police already informed me that this report had been destroyed years ago. Its many defects are detailed below in point 8.

Clearly, Police Scotland seriously failed to act properly here in the public interest. Instead of addressing the alleged criminality supported by this report they ferreted out one page amongst what Mr Thomson admits to be multiple documents in this civil action, in a desperate attempt to discredit me, which is utterly shameful.

This proves beyond reasonable doubt that DCI Thomson, DS Adams and DC Stewart have colluded with Scottish Enterprise and their solicitors in another disgraceful attempt to undermine my credibility, to conceal material evidence, to avoid carrying out a proper investigation into alleged criminality and to pervert the course of justice.

 

6.          ‘I turn now to the second point, Scottish Enterprise Ayrshire’s funds being utilised for a personal gain by Mr Gary Tracey. This is a matter you have raised civilly, as per court reference A3864/03 which concluded that the RBS bank account to which the £187,000 was credited to an account operated and controlled by Scottish Enterprise Ayrshire (sic).’ 

Again, Mr Thomson’s reference to a civil action is entirely irrelevant. I did not raise the matter of Scottish Enterprise Ayrshire’s funds being utilised by Mr Tracey for personal gain in this civil action.

Mr Thomson’s assertion that this civil case concluded that £187,000 was credited to an account operated and controlled by Scottish Enterprise Ayrshire is also false.

This was an action against Mr Andrew Downie for defamation. It was not an action against Mr Gary Tracey, or Scottish Enterprise Ayrshire or Scottish Enterprise.

The conclusion was that the court did not have jurisdiction in respect of the letters sent by Mr Downie to addresses in Edinburgh and London.

There was certainly no conclusion by the court that the RBS bank account to which the £187,000 was credited was to an account operated and controlled by Scottish Enterprise Ayrshire. 

Mr Thomson’s misrepresentation of this civil action indicates beyond reasonable doubt that the police have again colluded with Scottish Enterprise and their solicitors in a disgraceful attempt to undermine my credibility, to conceal material evidence, to avoid carrying out a proper investigation into alleged criminality and to pervert the course of justice.

 

7.          ‘With regards to the third matter you raised with DS Adams and DC Stewart, this has been considered in the original Police investigation and the subsequent reviews and consultation with Crown Office and the Procurator Fiscal Service.’

No it has not.

I have already presented a copy of the original rigged report along with details of material evidence having been concealed and further evidence of police failures in subsequent reviews in consultation with the COPFS.

And I have also presented to the police evidence of misconduct by senior prosecutors in this case which has yet to be submitted to independent Crown Counsel for consideration. 

 

8.          ‘In respect of the matters you raised with DS Adams and DC Stewart these have been previously considered and do not support any ‘new evidence’ of criminality.’

This is another false statement from Mr Thomson which further indicates beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Thomson has concealed material evidence and acted corruptly in order to cover for ACC Nicolson’s alleged misconduct relating to this case.

 

Several important documents were submitted to Police Scotland that had either not been adequately considered or not considered at all by the Police previously. In particular, the following Items produced recently for Police Scotland confirm that for many years the police failed to collect evidence from me that they had said they would collect in relation to this case:

 

 

52.      Letter to me from DI Robertson, Strathclyde Police, dated 20 February 2004.

 

53.      Letter from me to DI Robertson, Strathclyde Police, dated 21 July 2004.

 

54.      Recorded delivery proof for Item 53 above – side 1.

 

55.      Recorded delivery proof for Item 53 above – side 2.

 

With regard to Mr Thomson’s assertion that these matters have been considered previously, I gave the following information to Police Scotland in January 2016 along with supporting evidence further indicating the falsity of Mr Thomson’s assertion:

‘I obtained important evidence in February 2003 and passed it on to the police.’

‘In July 2003 the police asked the Lord Advocate to raise a petition for me to be categorised as a vexatious litigant.’                      

‘Consequently from a very early stage the police and the Crown Office had no intention of reviewing properly this evidence.  Instead they wanted to cover up the failures revealed in the evidence by having me legally disabled.’

‘The following statement was contained in a copy of a letter sent from the police to the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland dated 16 March 2009 which was disclosed to me in 2010 by the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998:’

‘’In July 2003, the Force took out an Action against Mr Cairns to have him declared a Vexatious Litigant in terms of the Vexatious Actions (Scotland) Act 1878 (sic).’’   

‘However, the police were supposedly reviewing this case until 2008.’

‘The Legal Services Ombudsman for England and Wales concurred with the Faculty of Advocates’ Ms Valerie Stacey QC, now Lady Stacey, a judge at the Court of Session, who advised me that I had grounds for a formal complaint about the conduct of the Lord Advocate in this case for interfering with live civil actions and misdirecting the police.’

As for previous unfair police involvement in civil matters intended to harm me, I also gave the following information to Police Scotland in January 2016:  

‘In 1999 the police provided a copy of the 1993 report to solicitors Maclay Murray and Spens who were acting for my opponents during my civil action against a third party.’

‘I have in my possession an itemised account from Maclay Murray and Spens, dated 21 June 2001, for expenses in that action.’

 

‘It includes the following disturbing details:’

 

‘‘1999 Nov 30    Attendance on telephone with Det. Sgt. Tom Forrest, Fraud Squad, advising re the Pursuer’s various references to him [1] , discussing circumstances of Pursuer’s allegations and noting standard steps taken in such circumstances; having him search for computer records in this particular matter, noting details of Police records and clarifying the conclusions reached following detailed investigation – engaged 30 minutes (qualified)’’

 

‘’1999 Dec  7     Short telephone call with Tom Woodbridge re clearance required to access the Scottish Enterprise files on the investigation into Pursuer’s allegation of accounting malpractice – engaged 4 minutes.’’

 

‘’1999 Dec  9     Writing Det. Ch. Insp. Nicolson providing background details, discussing his involvement  in investigating an alleged mis – treatment of European Community Funds, advising of documentation we require sight of and discussing arrangements to inspect  - 2pp’’

 

‘’1999 Dec  9      Attendance on telephone with Andrew Downie, now of Lothian and Edinburgh Enterprise, enquiring if there is any substence (sic) to Pursuer’s allegations going over circumstances and noting details – engaged 20 minutes (qualified)’’

 

‘’1999 Dec 13    Telephone attendance with Crown Office at Kilmarnock discussing matters – engaged 6 minutes’’

 

‘’1999 Dec 14     Writing the PF at Kilmarnock, providing background details and discussing previous investigations and requesting sight of Police Report sent to them for consideration - 2pp’’

 

‘‘1999 Dec 17    Telephone attendance with DCI Nicolson, going over points raised in our recent letter, noting comments in respect of Police investigations – engaged 6 minutes’’

 

‘‘1999 Dec 20  Telephone attendance with DI Riggins (sic) noting difficulties and forwarding a Police Report to PF and noting suggested course of action via PF’s office - engaged 8 minutes’’

 

‘’1999 Dec 23   Telephone attendance with PF in Kilmarnock noting difficulties in providing Report and pressing for Progress engaged 6 minutes’’

 

‘‘1999 Dec 23   Telephone attendance with London agents obtaining further details following their further investigations and discussing Police being assisted by Mr Woodbridge in obtaining details and discussing element of defamation, taking further instructions – engaged 10 minutes’’

 

‘‘1999 Dec 23   Telephone attendance with PF at Kilmarnock making further detailed enquiries and noting position’’’

 

‘’1999 Dec 24   Attendance on telephone with witness William Watters going over all circumstances and taking details for his precognition – engaged 30 minutes (qualified)’’

 

‘’1999 Dec 24   Writing Mr. Watters with his precognition, discussing terms of same and enquiring for a copy of his report to the PF’’

 

‘’2000 Jan 5    Short telephone call with William Watters acknowledging receipt of Police reports and enquiring if he is willing to waive the confidentiality Rules’’

 

‘’2000 Jan 5     Attendance considering Police Report, considering latest version of amended Writ and amending defences – engaged 1 hour (qualified)’’

 

‘’2000 Jan 6    Writing DI Riggins (sic)  reporting following our discussions with Mr. Watters, advising that he is likely to be needed as a witness and requesting authority to lodge Police Report with Court’’

 

‘’2000 Jan 24    Telephone attendance with Duncan Campbell, Chief Solicitor of Strathclyde Police, going over circumstances and noting specific demands for documentation that they would generally comply with – engaged 8 mins’’

 

‘’2000 Feb 8   Writing the Principal Procurator Fiscal Depute Mr W J Andrew at Kilmarnock providing the Pursuers with further details’’ [2]

 

‘The combination of public authorities involved in assisting my opponents in this civil action included the police, Enterprise Ayrshire, Scottish Enterprise and the Crown Office, the same authorities that appear to have colluded with one another and concealed material evidence since 1993 in the case of the alleged fraud in Enterprise Ayrshire and Scottish Enterprise.’

‘Mr Andrew Downie, who misrepresented the outcome of the 1993 investigation on behalf of Enterprise Ayrshire, may have acted here in his personal capacity but may fairly be regarded as having added to the combination an element of support from Lothian and Edinburgh Enterprise. ‘

‘Significantly, in the item above dated 20 December 1999 the following is stated:’

  ‘’...... forwarding a Police Report to PF ......’’

‘Why was the Procurator Fiscal involved in 1999? It looks like the Procurator Fiscal had not been informed adequately in 1993 if at all.’

‘I formally complained to Strathclyde Police about the misconduct of these individuals as revealed in this evidence.’

 

‘The response was from Detective Inspector John Riggans on 1 August 2001 who should not have handled the complaint at all because he was one of the persons about whom I had complained.’

 

‘Of course the Mr Nicolson who put falsehoods to me in writing on 19 September 2008 as detailed in section 6 below may be the same Mr Nicolson who appears in the expenses item above.’

 

‘Since Mr William Watters in particular apparently waived confidentiality rules and interfered unlawfully with a civil action by providing a Police Report to my opponents which resulted in the defences in that case being altered according to this document, these were very unfair actions by Strathclyde Police with seriously adverse consequences for me.’

 

‘It is likely that Mr Watters provided the same report here as he had provided earlier to the Scottish Office, which was in fact prepared not by Strathclyde Police at all but by Ms Mandy Dickson of Scottish Enterprise.’

 

‘Perhaps the so-called ‘Police Report’ was then swiftly destroyed in order to hide that fact from being found out.’

 

‘There is considerable evidence available indicating that no independent 1993 police report ever existed.’

 

‘On 26 June 2010 I wrote an important letter to the PCCS in the following terms:’

‘’In support of points made in my letter to you dated 13 June 2010 I enclose a copy of a letter dated 7 April 2005 from HMIC to Strathclyde Police recently disclosed to me by the PCCS.’’

‘‘That letter includes the following significant statements:’’

‘‘’Mr Cairns’ suspicion of collusion between the police and others appears largely founded on itemised entries on an account from the solicitors Maclay, Murray and Spens.’’

‘‘.......... HMIC understands that Maclay, Murray and Spens acknowledged, in a letter dated 8 July 2002 to Henessy, Bowie and Co, that a copy of the police report had in fact been supplied to them. HMIC recognises that the means by which the document had been provided was not divulged. This information may, nevertheless, be considered to add substance to Mr Cairns’ interpretation of the itemised account.’’

‘‘Could you please advise if any additional enquiry into Mr Cairns’ complaint was instigated as a result of the force receiving this new information and whether he was provided with an update in relation to the possession of the police report by Maclay, Murray and Spens..........’’

‘‘I can confirm that HMIC has been provided with a copy memorandum dated 19 July 2002 from .......... to Chief Supt ......... concerning the issue and a note, apparently written by Chief Superintendent ........ suggesting that no further action is to be taken.’’

‘The copy of the itemised account in question confirms that the police report was supplied by Detective Sergeant William Watters, the same person who is alleged to have conspired with employees of Enterprise Ayrshire, Scottish Enterprise and others to pervert the course of justice in this case.’

‘I have already indicated to you that a reasonable suspicion arises that the police copy of this report was deliberately destroyed unlawfully, during investigations into my police complaints, and/or during live civil actions and/or ongoing criminal investigations to which it had particular relevance, in order to conceal its obvious defects, including the fact that it had actually been prepared by Scottish Enterprise and was plainly rigged.’    

‘As I stated in my letter to you dated 10 September 2010 in that regard:’

‘‘In particular, your assertion that ‘At the time the applicant made his complaint the police file relating to the applicant’s original fraud allegation had been destroyed in accordance with the Strathclyde Police’s document retention policy’ is not the whole truth.’’

‘‘You knew when you made this statement that the officer in charge of the original police investigation, DS William Watters, had copied the police report to the Scottish Office and later to solicitors Maclay Murray and Spens.’’

‘’You also knew when you wrote the statements quoted above that I had obtained a copy of that police report in 2003 and had immediately submitted it to Strathclyde Police along with several items of documentary evidence highlighting its many serious failures.’’ 

‘‘The copy that I obtained from the Scottish Office had been sent by DS Watters to the Scottish Office along with a compliments slip containing the words ‘With the Compliments of the Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police’, signed ‘W. Watters D/S Fraud Squad’.’’

‘‘Consequently, your assertions that ‘any investigation into the independence of the investigating officers would have been hampered by the destruction of the police file’ and that ’any enquiries conducted in relation to this complaint would not have been likely to yield reliable evidence’ are simply disingenuous.’’ 

‘’Why have you completely disregarded the existence of this copy of the police report and all the evidence I submitted exposing its inadequacies?’’

‘The 1993 police report, which was likely to have been prepared by Scottish Enterprise, had relevance for an ongoing appeal to the Court of Session in respect of the civil action referred to above. In a hearing at the Court of Session in the summer of 2001 the Lords granted permission to lodge an appeal. The 1993 police report should not have been destroyed until at least the appeal hearings were over.’

 

‘The following statements were contained in a letter from DCS Ruaraidh Nicolson to me on19 September 2008 and I have added some comments as footnotes:’

‘’My officers have assessed your correspondence and I can now confirm that a full investigation was undertaken in relation to your complaint in 1993.’’     [3]

‘’As a result of that investigation a report of the circumstances was submitted to the Procurator Fiscal at Kilmarnock in 1994 and at a subsequent meeting with the Procurator Fiscal direction was given that no further action should be taken.’’      [4]

‘‘In 2004 DI Robertson again carried out enquiries into the ‘new evidence’ identified by you.  [5]   As a result of that it was established that all the evidential factors you identified were known to the Police and the Procurator Fiscal in 1994 and informed the decision by the Procurator Fiscal not to progress the enquiry.’’      [6]

‘’In conclusion Strathclyde Police has conducted a full and thorough investigation into your allegations when reported in 1993 and also when the enquiry was reviewed at your instigation in 2004.’’      [7]

 

‘Similarly, the following statements were contained in a letter from DI Graham Cowley to me on 26 March 2010:’

‘‘I have read the content of all the letters which you sent to me and write to advise that none of these contain any information not previously considered during the initial Police investigation in 1993 [8] and the subsequent reviews undertaken by this office in 2004 and 2008.’’ [9]

‘Perusal of the 1993 report reveals these statements to be false. All the documentary evidence and witness statements that I had provided to the police in 1993 were completely omitted from the report as detailed further on below.’

‘And the report itself had been prepared hurriedly and carelessly by Ms Mandy Dickson of Scottish Enterprise instead of by the police.’

‘On 9 July 2012 I wrote to the police including the following, reproduced here in italics for convenience:’

‘Strathclyde Police’s relatively recent assertions that all the documentary evidence submitted by me in recent years had been available to the police in 1993 indicates that the police did not handle that evidence properly because that evidence was not passed on to the Procurator Fiscal according to clarifications provided to me.’

‘Clarifications obtained from the Procurator Fiscal in 2005 included an assertion that I was the only witness to the alleged financial irregularities in 1993.’

‘Documentary evidence available to the police since 1993 according to the new evidence detailed above contains references to Mr Gary Tracey, Ms Janie Maxwell, Mr Andrew Downie and Ms Alison Norton.’

‘Since the Procurator Fiscal has maintained since 2005 that I was the only witness to the financial irregularities in 1993 the police appear not to have passed on this evidence to the Procurator Fiscal. Alternatively, employees in the COPFS acted improperly by concealing relevant evidence.’

‘I was given the following very important advice by the COPFS for the first time in a letter dated 15 April 2011:’

‘‘In response to your query as to why allegations of criminal conduct made by you regarding COPFS employees have not been referred to Crown Counsel, I can advise that none of the allegations made by you amounted to conduct of a criminal nature.’’

‘My letters raised the very important new substantive issue that the COPFS appear to have dishonestly refused to handle my allegations against COPFS employees properly and that this has been perpetrated by COPFS employees falsely pretending that the criminal allegations submitted were not criminal allegations. The general public already know that the alleged actions listed in my letters do amount to allegations of criminality.’

‘Your effective concurrence with the COPFS’s abject failure to address my genuine concerns indicates that you have effectively entered into the existing conspiracy to pervert the course of justice in this case.’

‘The COPFS’s angle that I was the only witness to the original financial irregularities, which was insufficient for a prosecution, remains an outstanding very significant falsehood.’

‘I did not make any entry in the accounts in respect of the £187,069 of public money in question. I did not make any arrangements for the transfers of the cash, over a period of a week, through three separate bank accounts while the money was excluded from the balance sheet.’

‘How was I the only witness? Were the financial manipulations as revealed in the available documentary evidence conjured up by Harry Potter? Or was it Paul Daniels?’

‘What about the names on the documents recording the financial manipulations and my objections? The names that appear are Andrew Downie, Gary Tracey, Janie Maxwell and Alison Norton.’

‘I also provided the name of Valery Spence, who had been instructed by Gary Tracey not to enter the cash into the accounts at the time of its receipt.’

‘In truth the COPFS’s reason given for not proceeding has no basis in fact or in law. I was plainly not the only witness and the COPFS’s disgraceful persistence in this obvious lie should be properly investigated in the public interest and in the interests of justice.’

‘The police have in reality wasted an enormous amount of public money in this case trying to suppress the truth and cover for the wrongdoers.’

‘You seem to have completely failed to take appropriate action to have those allegations properly investigated, not least in respect of the operation of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice involving senior managers in Scottish Enterprise, senior Strathclyde Police officers and senior employees of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.’

‘Since the allegations, supported by documentary evidence, included several instances of senior Strathclyde Police officers conspiring to pervert the course of justice you ought to have arranged for another force to carry out a prompt, effective, independent and impartial investigation. Further, since very serious allegations had been made in respect of senior employees of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service the force that you should have approached to investigate that matter ought to have been from another jurisdiction.’

 

‘The narrative in the Scottish Enterprise 1993 report is reproduced below and I have added some comments as footnotes:’

 

‘SE FINANCIAL MONITORING REPORT’

 

‘TO    Tom Woodbridge’

 

‘CC               John Langlands

Averil MacLachlan’

 

‘DATE           20 August 1993’

 

‘ENTERPRISE AYRSHIRE’

‘SPECIAL INVESTIGATION ERDF RECEIPT’

 

‘OBJECTIVE’

‘Following an allegation by a member of EA’s temporary staff, Tom Woodbridge requested that I visit EA to investigate the facts behind the report. [10] The substance of the allegation was that ERDF money had been received by EA in June 1993 but had not been recorded in the accounting records.’ [11]

 

‘WORK DONE’

‘1)         I established when the ERDF income had been received by EA by reviewing the bank statements.’

‘2)          I reviewed the relevant accounting records to establish when and if the income had been recorded.’

‘3)          Following the processing of the journal entry to bring the income into the July accounts [12] , I reconciled the ledger balance for the bank account to the bank statement.’

 

 

‘FINDINGS’

‘1)      A payment of £187,069 was made directly into EA’s main bank account on the 25 June 1993. The funds were subsequently transferred, over a period of a week, through three separate bank accounts. These accounts were all in the name of Enterprise Ayrshire [13] and are high interest call accounts managed by the Royal Bank of Scotland on EA’s behalf.’

‘2)        The receipt of the money was recorded in the cash book on the 25 June 1993. [14]  The following note was next to this entry:-‘

‘‘(No journal required as per G. Tracey [15] ) To go through July accounts.’’

‘3)        The income was journalised into the July ledger on the 18th August 1993 [16], the date of my visit.’

‘4)        A review of the bank reconciliation indicated that the bank statements had been reconciled only to the cash book [17]. As the entry had been made in the cash book for the ERDF income, no discrepancy arose. [18] Had the cash book balance been subsequently reconciled to the bank account in the financial ledger the difference would have been highlighted. [19]  There was no evidence that this reconciliation had been carried out. [20]

 

‘CONCLUSION’

‘The receipt of ERDF money was brought into the July financial ledger on 18 August. The money was received in June 1993 and should therefore have been accounted for in this month.  [21]

‘Documents disclosed to me by Audit Scotland in May 2009 included the following statements in a document headed Notes from review of papers submitted by E Cairns, prepared by Audit Scotland’s Mr Jim Martin, dated 20 August 2004 and reproduced here in italics for convenience:’

‘Mr Cairns is correct in his view that the ERDF monies should have been included in the EA June Management Accounts and it looks as though they might have been omitted from the July accounts but for his actions ....................... Speculation on why the monies were not disclosed in the management accounts is academic at this stage but it does seem odd that he was allegedly instructed to exclude them from the July accounts.’

‘Responses to Mr Cairns (sic) complaints from Scottish Enterprise and the Scottish Office Ministers dismiss the omission of the receipts as a technical accounting matter. That is disingenuous. Mr Cairns (sic) issue is about the deliberate misstatement of management accounts; there are governance issues here ................ The Board of EA were receiving these management accounts as was Scottish Enterprise, the principal funders. I see no reason why the ERDF monies should not have been shown in the first management accounts after their receipt. Scottish Enterprise should have been concerned that Mr Cairns was allegedly instructed to exclude them.’

 

‘.............. If Mr Cairns is seeking recompense for his dismissal we should not get drawn in.’

 

‘The last sentence ends the quotation.’

 

‘This was an important case that ought to have been adequately investigated by Audit Scotland. The figures in the monthly management accounts at Enterprise Ayrshire were the basis for obtaining public money. Evidence available to Audit Scotland confirmed that I had been instructed to commit a criminal act in Enterprise Ayrshire, treated with open hostility by the other members of staff who had already agreed to enter into the conspiracy, summarily dismissed before any investigation by Scottish Enterprise had taken place, stonewalled thereafter and unjustifiably publicly disparaged, rendering me unemployable in my profession.’

 

9.          Therefore, I will not be instructing any further Police investigation.’

Mr Thomson has failed to act in accordance with his responsibilities to ensure that an adequate enquiry was carried out into evidence that had either not been adequately considered or not considered at all by the Police previously.

The available evidence indicates beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Thomson, Mr Adams and Ms Stewart conspired with Scottish Enterprise and their solicitors to pervert the course of justice in this case, a very grave matter.

 

Consequently, in the first instance I want to raise a formal complaint against DCI Kenneth Thomson, DS Adams and DC Stewart.

 

I will shortly forward copies of documents in support of my position by email.

Yours faithfully,

                                    Eddie Cairns.

 

My letter dated 8 June 2016

Mr E Cairns

72 Hillhouse Street

GLASGOW G21 4HP

8 June 2016

 

 

The Professional Standards Department

Police Headquarters Scotland

P.O. Box 21184

ALLOA FK10 9DE

 

 

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please add the following points to my letter dated 4 June 2016:

 

1.          Perusal of the original Scottish Enterprise report, recently referred to by Detective Chief Inspector Kenneth Thomson in his letter to me dated 31 May 2016 as contained in the Fifth Inventory of Productions in civil action reference A3641/2003, in conjunction with evidence I submitted to Police Scotland would have confirmed to Detective Chief Inspector Kenneth Thomson, Detective Sergeant Steven Adams and Detective Constable Yuan-nee Stewart the failures of police officers to ensure that an adequate investigation had initially been carried out in this case, including failures by Detective Superintendent Gordon Ferrie and Detective Sergeant William Watters.

 

2.          Perusal of the original Scottish Enterprise report in conjunction with evidence I submitted to Police Scotland would have confirmed to Detective Chief Inspector Kenneth Thomson, Detective Sergeant Steven Adams and Detective Constable Yuan-nee Stewart the falsity of subsequent statements by police officers that all the evidence I submitted to the police had already been considered in that initial report, including false statements by Assistant Chief Constable Ruaraidh Nicolson and Detective Inspector Graham Cowley.

         

3.          Detective Chief Inspector Kenneth Thomson, Detective Sergeant Steven Adams and Detective Constable Yuan-nee Stewart appear to have knowingly persisted in falsely stating that all the matters I raised had been considered previously.

 

4.          Perusal of the original Scottish Enterprise report in conjunction with evidence I submitted to Police Scotland would have confirmed to Detective Chief Inspector Kenneth Thomson, Detective Sergeant Steven Adams and Detective Constable Yuan-nee Stewart that material evidence had been concealed by employees of Enterprise Ayrshire and Scottish Enterprise in the context of assisting the police enquiry in this case.

 

The employees involved included Mr Andrew Downie, Mr Gary Tracey and Ms Janie Maxwell of Enterprise Ayrshire and Mr Tom Woodbridge and Ms Mandy Dickson of Scottish Enterprise.

 

 5.          Material evidence that had been concealed included the following:

 

          (a)          Any evidence or witness statement from me.

 

The investigating accountant made no contact with me whatsoever and disregarded all the documentary evidence in support of my allegations that was available on the premises of Enterprise Ayrshire and Scottish Enterprise.

         

          (b)          My witness statements to Detective Sergeant William Watters on 7 September 1993.

 

Since the Scottish Enterprise report was dated 20 August 1993 the police ought to have ensured that the report was updated.

 

          (c)          My letter to Detective Superintendent Gordon Ferrie, dated 19 August 1993, and the documents I enclosed with that letter ‘showing the omission of a receipt from the EC of £187,069 in the balance sheet of Enterprise Ayrshire’.

 

          (d)          My email dated 17 August 1993 to my supervisors in Enterprise Ayrshire, Mr Gary Tracey and Ms Janie Maxwell, which stated the following:

‘For the record, as I said to you both today, I am not comfortable with your instruction to exclude from Enterprise Ayrshire’s balance sheet funds received from the EC.’

‘Your comment that the management accounts do not matter so much, being produced only for internal use, seems to underplay the potentially serious consequences of circulating figures that are incorrect.’

‘I stated to you both that I know this aspect of Scottish Enterprise’s finances is under investigation by the National Audit Office therefore you must accept my concern as genuine.’

‘I have been advised that such omissions from management accounts are in breach of the Institute’s ethical guidelines.’  

 

          (e)          Evidence of my regular monthly reconciliations to the financial ledger which were held in the Enterprise Ayrshire Excel files at my workstation, in particular the reconciliation which had been forwarded to Mr Gary Tracey by email showing the discrepancy in the first accounting month in which it had arisen, June 1993. The Scottish Enterprise report falsely stated that there was no evidence that this reconciliation had been carried out.

 

Mr Tom Woodbridge, Scottish Enterprise Head of Finance, and Enterprise Ayrshire employees Mr Andrew Downie, Mr Gary Tracy and Ms Janie Maxwell knew that I had produced reconciliations showing the £187,069 to have been omitted from the balance sheet in the June 1993 and July 1993 accounts that had been presented to me for reconciliation. 

 

          (f)          Names of all the finance workers involved in the financial irregularities and witness statements from them. These ought to have included Mr Tom Woodbridge, Mr Andrew Downie, Mr Gary Tracey, Ms Janie Maxwell, Ms Alison Norton, Ms Valery Spence and myself.

          (g)          A plausible explanation for the irregularities.

The money had been received in June 1993 and should have been entered into the accounts in that month but had not been entered until 18 August 1993. One could justifiably ask why there was no reason elicited by the investigator. Why had staff who routinely made the entries for cash receipts and payments omitted to do so in this case? Documentary evidence and even the report’s confirmation that there was a note blocking the journal entry support my allegation that it was because they had been instructed to do so by one of my supervisors, Mr Gary Tracey. He had also tried to incite me to enter into a conspiracy to falsify the accounts in respect of this money.

 

          (h)          My allegation that I had been incited by Mr Gary Tracey to enter into a conspiracy to falsify the accounts in respect of this money.

My allegation was supported by the note blocking the journal entry and the actions of finance workers who had accepted the invitation to falsify the accounts.

 

          (i)          The fact that one of the bank accounts through which the £187,000 in question was transferred was not in the name of Enterprise Ayrshire, contrary to what was falsely stated in the Scottish Enterprise report, but was in the name of Mr Gary Tracey. This is the person that the evidence shows had instructed the financial irregularities and had thereby corrupted staff more junior to him.

         

          (j)          The fact that the bank account in the name of Mr Gary Tracey was not a high interest call account managed by the Royal Bank of Scotland on EA’s behalf, contrary to what was falsely stated in the Scottish Enterprise report. Deposits into Mr Gary Tracey’s account did not mature at call. They matured one month and one day after the deposit had been made. The bank did not manage Mr Gary Tracey’s account.         

 

          (k)          My allegation that I had been questioning the financial irregularities in my reconciliation work and had objected in writing to the instruction to comply.

           

          (l)          My allegation that I had approached Mr Tom Woodbridge, Scottish Enterprise Head of Finance, for help when I had been immediately threatened with dismissal by my one of my supervisors, Ms Janie Maxwell, when she read my email recording my objections to the financial irregularities but that Mr Woodbridge had declined to give me any support.                                       

 

          (m)          The evidence showing that the £187,000 had been re-deposited in a high interest bank account on 3 August 1993, maturing not at call but on 4 September 1993, in the name of Mr Gary Tracey while still omitted from the company’s financial ledger whereas it ought to have been transferred to Scottish Enterprise in the month following receipt. This indicated that the senior finance staff had no intention of handling this money in accordance with correct procedure until I raised my objection in writing on 17 August 1993.

 

          (n)          My allegation that I had been instructed to overlook in my account reconciliation work the deliberate omission from the accounts of a cash grant for £187,069 received on 25 June 1993 by electronic transfer from the European Regional Development Fund.

 

My allegation was supported by my email to my supervisors dated 17 August 1993.

 

          (o)          My allegation that the reason for the financial irregularities was to gain interest that would otherwise not be gained.

 

          (p)          Any recognition that in Scots law the definition of theft is taking control of an asset that does not belong to you without the owner’ s permission.

          (q)          Any recognition that fraud has been defined as ‘the bringing about of any practical result by false pretences.’ (Macdonald, 52)

 

6.          Perusal of the original Scottish Enterprise report in conjunction with evidence I submitted to Police Scotland would have confirmed to Detective Chief Inspector Kenneth Thomson, Detective Sergeant Steven Adams and Detective Constable Yuan-nee Stewart that Scottish Enterprise’s Head of Finance, Mr Tom Woodbridge, had concealed material evidence and misrepresented the Scottish Enterprise report in the context of assisting the police in their initial investigation.

On 23 September 1993 Mr Tom Woodbridge wrote to the government including the following:

‘Mr Cairns reported his allegations to Scottish Enterprise by telephone on the morning of 18 August. Scottish Enterprise investigating accountant carried out an examination of the books and records at Enterprise Ayrshire premises that afternoon. A full report on the investigation was presented on 20 August.’

‘The report showed that there was no question of fraudulent activity. The issue at the centre of the allegations involved a technical accounting matter in regard to when a credit should have been disclosed in the management accounts.’

As the evidence shows, the Scottish Enterprise report had not been full and it had contained no such assertions.

In the same letter Mr Woodbridge disclosed that he knew, as recorded in the following extract, that there was a recognised problem in accounting for and controlling European grants received by the Local Enterprise Companies directly:

 

‘Examination of European receipts is part of the annual Financial Appraisal and Monitoring plan. We discussed this point after the 100% plan meeting on 7th September and I suggested that Scottish Office may be able to assist our monitoring arrangements in this respect by notifying us of European funding payments made directly to Local Enterprise Companies.’

 

In addition I wrote to Police Scotland on 28 January 2016 alleging that current directors in Scottish Enterprise, namely Ms Lena Wilson and Mr Iain Scott, had recently lied and acted evasively about this case in responses to pertinent questions put to them by Ms Patricia Ferguson MSP and Mr Bob Doris MSP.

For example, on 30 May 2012 Ms Lena Wilson wrote to Ms Patricia Ferguson MSP including the words that are reproduced below, misrepresenting the true position:

‘The subject matter of Mr Cairns’ complaint dates back to 1993 and relates to an accounting matter raised by Mr Cairns regarding when a credit should have been shown in the management accounts of Scottish Enterprise Ayrshire (SE Ayrshire) formerly named Enterprise Ayrshire.’

‘The matter was immediately investigated at the time by Scottish Enterprise, its principal funder, and the accounting requirements for Local Enterprise Companies were clarified. No evidence of fraud or wrongdoing was found.’

Perusal of the original Scottish Enterprise report would have confirmed that it contained no such assertions.

Mr Iain Scott misrepresented the Scottish Enterprise report in communications with Mr Bob Doris MSP.

Beyond reasonable doubt Mr Scott made false statements in order to avoid addressing the questions Mr Doris had raised in his letter to Ms Lena Wilson dated 5 November 2013 with reference to the statements about my case in Ms Lena Wilson’s letter to Ms Patricia Ferguson MSP dated 30 May 2012 that ‘the accounting requirements for Local Enterprise Companies were clarified’ and ‘no evidence of fraud or wrongdoing was found’.

The questions are reproduced below in italics for convenience:

‘Can you elaborate on what clarification was provided and to whom? Were Enterprise Ayrshire’s accountants unaware of their obligations to log cash receipts on time? Was Enterprise Ayrshire unaware that accounting standards apply to LECs?  If no wrongdoing had occurred, why was it necessary to clarify the requirements? I gather that an additional £187,069 was retrospectively added to the accounts following the investigation. Again, if accounting standards had been followed, why was this necessary?’

Mr Doris tried again in vain to obtain answers to these questions in his letter to Mr Scott dated 7 March 2014 in which he included the following, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

 

‘Thank you for your letter of 27 November 2013 regarding Mr Cairns, which I enclose for reference.’

 

‘Having reviewed the case, I note you allude in that letter to Mr Cairns having exhausted your complaints procedures. That being the case, it would be most helpful if you could inform me how the complaints process dealt with the questions raised in the penultimate paragraph of my most recent letter, which I also enclose.’

 

I provided documentary evidence to Police Scotland in support of this issue but Detective Chief Inspector Kenneth Thomson, Detective Sergeant Steven Adams and Detective Constable Yuan-nee Stewart have entirely disregarded my allegations about Scottish Enterprise’s original falsehoods in this case and my allegations about their recent additional falsehoods.

 

7.          Perusal of the original Scottish Enterprise report in conjunction with evidence I submitted to Police Scotland would have confirmed to Detective Chief Inspector Kenneth Thomson, Detective Sergeant Steven Adams and Detective Constable Yuan-nee Stewart that employees of the Scottish Office had conspired with Scottish Enterprise to pervert the course of justice in this case.

 

The Scottish Office’s Ms Mariot Leslie admitted that Scottish Office officials had considered the evidence and that Scottish Enterprise was responsible, through the Scottish Office, to the Secretary of State for Scotland for the overall performance of its duties which included monitoring the LECs’ performance.

 

Statements from the Scottish Office’s Ms Mariot Leslie, Mr John Patterson and Ms Julie Kane indicate that they failed to act in accordance with the Scottish Office’s obligations and that beyond reasonable doubt they conspired with Scottish Enterprise officials to pervert the course of justice in this case.

 

Ms Leslie, Mr Patterson and Ms Kane ought to have addressed Scottish Enterprise’s failures and reported these to the police for their enquiry to be reviewed.

 

The documented reliance of the police on Scottish Enterprise to investigate the alleged financial irregularities was entirely misplaced according to the available evidence.

And the reliance of two MPs on the Scottish Office carrying out a thorough investigation into the alleged financial irregularities, which also involved the police according to the available evidence, was also entirely misplaced.

I provided documentary evidence to Police Scotland in support of this issue but Detective Chief Inspector Kenneth Thomson, Detective Sergeant Steven Adams and Detective Constable Yuan-nee Stewart have entirely disregarded my allegation that Scottish Office officials conspired with Scottish Enterprise to pervert the course of justice in this case.       

Yours faithfully,

                                  Eddie Cairns.

 

My letter dated 15 November 2016

Mr Eddie Cairns

72 Hillhouse Street

GLASGOW G21 4HP

15 November 2016

 

 

Superintendent John Laing

Professional Standards Department

Police Headquarters Scotland

P.O. Box 21184

ALLOA FK10 9DE

 

Your ref     CO/04179/16 West/D EM

 

Dear Mr Laing,

Thank you for your letter dated 11 November 2016.

 

As you will know Police Scotland already notified me on 23 June 2016 that Police Scotland would not re-investigate my complaint and that I would not receive any further correspondence from Police Scotland in relation to this allegation.

 

Consequently I raised a complaint with the Scottish Police Authority on 25 June 2016 against the Deputy Chief Constable responsible for the maintenance of professional standards in Police Scotland which is currently in progress.

 

I also raised a complaint with the Police Investigations & Review Commissioner on 18 October 2016 against Detective Chief Inspector Kenneth Thomson, Detective Sergeant Steven Adams and Detective Constable Yuan-nee Stewart. On 2 November 2016 this matter was referred by the PIRC Head of Review & Policy, Mr or Ms Iliya Zharov, to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.

 

You now appear to be going back a few stages and if you want to do that I would prefer the police to focus upon the new evidence of criminality emanating from Scottish Enterprise in 2016 and on the submission of an adequate report to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service about Scottish Enterprise rather than on any police complaints.

 

In that regard I wrote to the Scottish Police Authority on 7 July 2016 which included the following:

                

Scottish Police Authority Complaints Reference Number SPA0682

                    

Dear Sir or Madam,

COMPLAINT AGAINST THE DEPUTY CHIEF CONSTABLE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS IN POLICE SCOTLAND

I have received a letter from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service dated 5 July 2016 including the following statements, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

 

‘Thank you for your letter of 11 June 2016 enclosing a letter you sent to Scottish Enterprise and an item of evidence that you believe has either not been adequately considered or not considered at all by the Police and COPFS.’

‘I have not been able to trace a report having been submitted by Police Scotland against Scottish Enterprise in relation to the matters referred to in your correspondence. Accordingly, I am unable to consider the matters you refer to.’

‘You may wish to raise this matter with Police Scotland and I have included their contact details below:’

 

As you know I have already received a communication dated 23 June 2016 indicating that the Deputy Chief Constable responsible for the maintenance of professional standards in Police Scotland would not send any further correspondence to me in relation to this allegation, including the following statement, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

 

‘You will not receive any further correspondence from Police Scotland in relation to this allegation.’

 

Consequently, I want to add this failure to my formal complaint against the Deputy Chief Constable responsible for the maintenance of professional standards in Police Scotland.

If you think the officer ought to be given an opportunity to change his or her mind on the matter please notify me. As things stand, however, I believe that it is reasonable for me to proceed in accordance with the existing stated position by the Police that I will not receive any further correspondence from Police Scotland in relation to this allegation.

 

The last sentence ends the extract.

 

My letters to the Professional Standards Department dated 4 and 8 June 2016 and my subsequent letters to the SPA and the PIRC contained considerable details about new evidence of criminality by Scottish Enterprise directors Ms Lena Wilson and Mr Iain Scott arising in 2016 and new evidence of criminality by Scottish Enterprise employees during the original police investigation in 1993, again arising in 2016, including new evidence of criminality by directors Mr Tom Woodbridge and Mr Andrew Downie.

 

The new evidence indicates that Scottish Enterprise directors concealed material evidence and gave false information to the police in 1993 and again in 2016.

 

If proper and adequate consideration is given by Police Scotland to the new evidence of financial irregularities in Scottish Enterprise and the repeated attempts by Scottish Enterprise directors to pervert the course of justice by concealing material evidence and giving false information to the police in 1993 and again in 2016 and if a comprehensive report is submitted to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service on these issues then I would withdraw all my complaints against the police.

 

Yours sincerely,

                               Eddie Cairns.

 

  

My letter dated 16 November 2016

 

Mr Eddie Cairns

72 Hillhouse Street

GLASGOW G21 4HP

16 November 2016

 

 

Superintendent John Laing

Professional Standards Department

Police Headquarters Scotland

P.O. Box 21184

ALLOA FK10 9DE

 

Your ref     CO/04179/16 West/D EM

 

Dear Mr Laing,

On the matter of new evidence of criminality emanating from Scottish Enterprise in 2016 I wrote to the SPA on 8 July 2016 including the following relevant points:

 

Scottish Police Authority Complaints Reference Number SPA0682

                    

Dear Sir or Madam,

COMPLAINT AGAINST THE DEPUTY CHIEF CONSTABLE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS IN POLICE SCOTLAND

I have received disclosures from Scottish Enterprise under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998 which make reference to DC Stewart of Police Scotland.

The disclosures contain several matters of serious concern that I would bring to the attention of Police Scotland but for the notification to me on 23 June 2016 that I will not receive any further correspondence from Police Scotland in relation to this allegation.

Consequently, I want to add the failure of the Deputy Chief Constable responsible for the maintenance of professional standards in Police Scotland to respond to these matters of serious concern, which are detailed below, to my formal complaint against that senior officer.

If you think the officer ought to be given an opportunity to change his or her mind on the matter please notify me. As things stand, however, I believe that it is reasonable for me to proceed in accordance with the existing stated position by the Police that I will not receive any further correspondence from Police Scotland in relation to this allegation.

Copies of the disclosures from Scottish Enterprise are attached.

The following matters of serious concern arise and require to be addressed in the public interest and in the interests of justice:

 

1.          Mr Iain Scott, Scottish Enterprise’s Chief Financial Officer and Company Secretary, wrote to DC Stewart of Police Scotland on 15 April 2016 including the following statements, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

 

‘Hi DC Stewart,’

‘As discussed, here is a scan of the court papers from 2004. I have scanned them as 2 separate documents with the first being Productions 4 to 10 (where production 9 is the bank confirmation of the funds being transferred to a ‘’Customer Bid Deposit Account’’ for just over a month.’

‘Kind regards’

‘Iain.’

 

Of course the chumminess reflected in this correspondence is entirely inappropriate in the context of an investigation into alleged financial irregularities in a public authority.

The document referred to here as production 9 is the Royal Bank of Scotland confirmation of a £187,000 deposit to account 00151450 in the name of Mr Gary Tracey dated 1 July 1993.

Significantly, Mr Scott culpably omits to mention that the funds in question, £187,000 of public money, were deliberately excluded from the company’s balance sheet for the entire period of its transfer into an account in the name of Mr Gary Tracey.

If the £187,000 held in the name of Mr Tracey had really been in the name of Enterprise Ayrshire, as suggested in Mr Scott’s letter, it would have been included in the company’s balance sheet as at 2 July 1993. 

 

But the Scottish Enterprise report and the extract from my bank reconciliation as at 2 July 1993, which are both included in Mr Scott’s scanned documents sent to DC Stewart, confirm that £187,069 was missing from the company’s balance sheet at 2 July 1993.    

 

Where was this money at 2 July 1993 and for several weeks thereafter? It was in the hands of Mr Tracey.

 

This deposit was MATURING at 2 AUG 1993, which was one calendar month and one day after the date of the initial deposit. 

 

According to the terms of the account this money was actually committed in the name of Mr Tracey until 4 September 1993 because the money was deposited again into the same account on 3 August 1993 which means that it did not mature until 4 September 1993. But the ERDF receipt was to have been transferred to Scottish Enterprise during the July 1993 accounting period according to the operating contract. The accounts would normally be finalised around the middle of the following month, in this case around the middle of August 1993.

 

This evidence alone proves that the financial irregularities were fraudulent. Excluding the cash from the accounts was the deception that brought about the practical result of making the cash available to be taken control of without the owners’ consent, in other words without the general public’s consent as laid down in the laws applicable to this public authority, and thereby gaining interest that otherwise would not be gained, at the expense of UK taxpayers.

 

Mr Andrew Downie and Mr Gary Tracey took control of this public money beyond what was lawful. Taxpayers’ cash was indeed effectively stolen thereby.  

 

The money was in the hands of Mr Gary Tracey for the whole time it was deliberately omitted from the company accounts as instructed by Mr Tracey.

 

In the context of a police review Mr Scott has beyond reasonable doubt concealed material evidence in respect of these points in an attempt to pervert the course of justice.

 

 

2.          Mr Iain Scott wrote to DC Stewart of Police Scotland on 15 April 2016 including the following statements, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

 

‘The second document is Production 11, which is the ‘’Strathclyde Police report on Enterprise Ayrshire’’. You will see that page 14 of this document is the same bank statement that he has recently sent to you.’           

 

Firstly, I did not present this document to Scottish Enterprise or to the police in this civil action, which was an action for defamation against a private individual.

 

Mr Scott’s assertion that this evidence was contained in the productions in a case against a private individual is entirely irrelevant and disingenuous in the context of this review.

 

Neither the police nor Scottish Enterprise had any valid involvement in this case. 

 

However, the fact that Scottish Enterprise holds such documentation indicates that Scottish Enterprise, a public authority, was indeed improperly, unfairly and unlawfully involved in assisting my opponent in a civil action which had nothing to do with Scottish Enterprise or the police.

 

Scottish Enterprise was neither the pursuer nor the defender in this case. Why does Scottish Enterprise hold these details about me and why has Scottish Enterprise disclosed such details about me to the police? I believe this is a serious breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 and another indication that Mr Scott has beyond reasonable doubt concealed material evidence in an attempt to pervert the course of justice.

 

Mr Scott’s scanned documents on this case in his communication with DC Stewart clearly identify it as the case of Edward Edelsten Cairns v Andrew Downie

The inclusion of this single page in the productions was in any event incidental. It happened to be included in the 36 page Scottish Enterprise report but there was no reference at all to this page in the case record.

Since the police informed me that their copy of this report was destroyed around the year 2000 this document would not have been available to the police for about the last 16 years.

In any event the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland rejected my provision of a copy of this report for consideration in its review of the Police’s handling of my complaints, as recorded in the PCCS report on this case dated August 2010.

As for any recorded consideration of this document by the police, none exists.

 

The Scottish Enterprise report falsely stated that this bank account was in the name of Enterprise Ayrshire and made no mention of the fact that it was plainly shown to be in the name of GARY TRACEY C/O ENTERPRISE AYRSHIRE.

 

‘C/O’ means ‘at the address of’.

 

Therefore this bank account, according to documentary evidence, was in the name of Mr Gary Tracey at the address of Enterprise Ayrshire.

 

Further, including the words ‘‘STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL’ and ‘ALL ENQUIRIES TO GARY TRACEYTO ANDREW DOWNIE  NO-ONE ELSE’ on the face of this bank statement was clearly abnormal and gave rise to a reasonable suspicion of financial irregularity but the Scottish Enterprise report completely overlooked this.

 

 

3.          Mr Scott’s inclusions of the Strathclyde Police report on Enterprise Ayrshire and other productions in the scanned documents he sent to Police Scotland on 15 April 2016, which report Scottish Enterprise knows was in fact produced by one of their accountants Ms Mandy Dickson and not by the police at all, give rise to some important considerations:

 

     (a)     The police informed me that their copy of this report had been destroyed several years ago, around the year 2000.

 

Its provision to Police Scotland by Scottish Enterprise now permits perusal of its contents in the light of the available evidence.        

 

     (b)     The first matter of concern is the amount of evidence concealed by Scottish Enterprise and the police, including in the recent review, as already detailed above and further detailed below.         

 

     (c)     In his communication with DC Stewart Mr Scott included a scanned copy of my reconciliation showing the omission of the £187,069 in question from the company’s balance sheet as at 2 July 1993.

 

The report falsely stated that there was no evidence that this reconciliation had been carried out.

 

     (d)     In his communication with DC Stewart Mr Scott included a scanned copy of my email to Mr Gary Tracey and Ms Janie Maxwell dated 17 August 1993 which stated the following, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

 

‘For the record, as I said to you both today, I am not comfortable with your instruction to exclude from Enterprise Ayrshire’s balance sheet funds received from the EC.’

‘Your comment that the management accounts do not matter so much, being produced only for internal use, seems to underplay the potentially serious consequences of circulating figures that are incorrect.’

‘I stated to you both that I know this aspect of Scottish Enterprise’s finances is under investigation by the National Audit Office therefore you must accept my concern as genuine.’

‘I have been advised that such omissions from management accounts are in breach of the Institute’s ethical guidelines.’  

 

The report completely excluded this very important evidence.

 

    (e)     In his communication with DC Stewart Mr Scott included a scanned copy of the extract from the manual cash book showing the following words at the record of £187,069 received on 25 June 1993, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

 

‘NO JOURNAL REQUIRED AS PER G.TRACEY’

 

The report referred to a later version where the words ‘TO GO THROUGH JULY ACCOUNTS’ had been added.

    

The report offered no explanation for this note, which corroborated my allegation of having been instructed by Mr Gary Tracey to falsify the accounts in respect of this receipt from the European Regional Development Fund.

 

Further corroboration is provided by the actions of other finance staff who acted in accordance with Mr Tracey’s fraudulent instructions to falsify the accounts.

 

(f)     In his communication with DC Stewart Mr Scott included a scanned copy of the SE report which concluded the following, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

 

 

‘The receipt of ERDF money was brought into the July financial ledger on 18 August. The money was received in June 1993 and should therefore have been accounted for in this month.’

 

 

This conclusion justifies my concern about the Enterprise Ayrshire accounts as they stood when I wrote my email on 17 August 1993.

 

In his communication with DC Stewart Mr Scott included a scanned copy of a press release in the following terms, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

 

 

‘STATEMENT GIVEN TO KIRSTY SCOTT, THE HERALD regarding allegations of mis-accounting at Enterprise Ayrshire’

‘Scottish Enterprise National took these allegations seriously, and investigated them thoroughly on the day that they were made. There is no substance to any of the allegations made regarding the receipt of European funds by Enterprise Ayrshire. Our enquiries are complete and there are no grounds for taking any action.’

 

‘Issued by the Press Office of Scottish Enterprise’

‘September 1, 1993’

 

Since the accounts had been corrected by £187,069 within hours of my written objections to the financial irregularities, plainly the press release was false.

 

Mr Scott included a scanned copy of this press release in his communication with DC Stewart. Clearly, Mr Scott is persisting in concealing material evidence and knowingly providing false information to the police to this day, a very grave matter.

 

 

4.          Separately, there were several other new items of evidence submitted recently to Police Scotland which have either not been adequately considered or not considered at all by Scottish Enterprise, or by the police or by the Crown Office.

 

 

The last sentence ends the relevant extracts.

 

On 7 August 2016 I wrote another letter to the SPA on the matter of new evidence of criminality emanating from Scottish Enterprise in 2016 which included the following relevant points:

 

 

Scottish Police Authority Complaints Reference Number SPA0682

 

Dear Sir or Madam,

COMPLAINT AGAINST THE DEPUTY CHIEF CONSTABLE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS IN POLICE SCOTLAND

I refer to the disclosures I recently received from Scottish Enterprise under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998 which make reference to DC Stewart of Police Scotland.

You already have a copy of the disclosures.

 

In addition to the matters of serious concern that I would bring to the attention of Police Scotland but for the notification to me on 23 June 2016 that I will not receive any further correspondence from Police Scotland in relation to this allegation I want to add the points detailed below.

 

In his communication with DC Stewart dated 15 April 2016 Mr Iain Scott, Scottish Enterprise’s Chief Financial Officer and Company Secretary, indicated in the following terms that he would shortly be providing a statement on this case for Police Scotland:

 

 

‘I look forward to hearing from you next week regarding you coming in to our office to take a statement.’

 

 

Mr Scott’s statement did not lead to any report from Police Scotland to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, which raises a reasonable suspicion that in his statement Mr Scott misrepresented the evidence he had attached to his email to DC Stewart on 15 April 2016. Mr Scott had provided a copy of the original Scottish Enterprise report and other scanned documents that are rather obviously incompatible with that manifestly defective report, without qualification, comment or explanation, indicating that important evidence had been concealed by Scottish Enterprise in 1993 and again in April 2016. Why then was no report submitted to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service following on from the review by Detective Chief Inspector Kenneth Thomson, Detective Sergeant Steven Adams and Detective Constable Yuan-nee Stewart which was completed in May 2016?

In these circumstances the fact that no report from Police Scotland has been submitted to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service cannot be relied upon to mean that there was no reasonable suspicion of criminality that ought to have been reported by the Police.   

 

 

The last sentence ends the relevant extracts.

 

 

I also wrote to the Chief Executive of Scottish Enterprise Ms Lena Wilson on this subject on 21 July 2016 in the following terms:

 

Dear Ms Wilson,

Your failure to respond to my letter dated 26 January 2016 was not justified.

I am a former employee, whistleblower and complainant to whom Scottish Enterprise still owes a duty of care.

Scottish Enterprise has never responded to any complaint from me. The angle that I exhausted Scottish Enterprise’s complaints process is false.

So that there is no doubt that your current position is knowingly based upon a pack of lies I attach copies of letters I have recently sent to the authorities detailing several falsehoods emanating from Scottish Enterprise, including false information provided to Police Scotland on 15 April 2016, a criminal matter.

I have also recently met with an MP and provided details about Scottish Enterprise’s persistent dishonesty and intransigence in this case under your personal misdirection. The MP suggested providing details to the press.

Why did Scottish Enterprise issue the following false statements to the press at the time of the original investigation, thereby destroying my professional reputation without justification?

 

‘STATEMENT GIVEN TO KIRSTY SCOTT, THE HERALD regarding allegations of mis-accounting at Enterprise Ayrshire’

‘Scottish Enterprise National took these allegations seriously, and investigated them thoroughly on the day that they were made. There is no substance to any of the allegations made regarding the receipt of European funds by Enterprise Ayrshire. Our enquiries are complete and there are no grounds for taking any action.’

‘Issued by the Press Office of Scottish Enterprise’

‘September 1, 1993’

 

Since the accounts had been corrected by £187,069 within hours of my written objections to the financial irregularities, plainly the press release was false.

 

It is a matter of very grave concern that Mr Iain Scott, Scottish Enterprise’s Chief Financial Officer and Company Secretary, provided for Police Scotland a copy of this misleading press release without qualification, comment or explanation on 15 April 2016 in the context of a review.

Mr Scott also provided to the police on 15 April 2016 a copy of the original Scottish Enterprise report and other scanned documents that are rather obviously incompatible with that manifestly defective report, again without qualification, comment or explanation, indicating that important evidence had been concealed by Scottish Enterprise in 1993 and again in April 2016.

Therefore Mr Scott’s communication with Police Scotland in April 2016 amounts to new evidence of criminality that I have brought to the attention of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.  

Concealing material evidence in the context of an investigation into alleged financial irregularities in a public authority or in the context of a review is of course properly regarded as an attempt to pervert the course of justice. 

 

The last sentence ends the relevant extracts.

 

The letter dated 26 January 2016 to which reference is made above contained the following points:

 

Dear Ms Wilson,

In your letter to Ms Patricia Ferguson MSP on 30 May 2012 you stated that I had already been told that unless I had new evidence Scottish Enterprise would not continue to correspond with me.

Recently I was reviewing documents relating to this issue. Over the years I have obtained a very large number of documents in subject access disclosures from several sources under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998.

Among these documents I discovered a bank statement dated 24 August 1993 which is for an RBS account in the name of Gary Tracey, c/o Enterprise Ayrshire, with a balance of £187,000.

This proves that Mr Gary Tracey had taken personal control of this substantial amount of taxpayers' cash, apparently with the agreement of Ms Janie Maxwell, Mr Andrew Downie and Mr Tom Woodbridge in the light of my experience at the time.  

If I had taken £100 from the petty cash in Enterprise Ayrshire and deposited it in an RBS account in the name of Eddie Cairns, c/o Enterprise Ayrshire I believe I would be breaking the law.

I requested an investigation into this matter by Police Scotland on the grounds of this new evidence, a copy of which is attached, and today I gave a written statement to two detectives.

Now that this evidence has been brought to your attention are you going to continue pretending that my concerns were not justified? How did an employee of Enterprise Ayrshire come to have £187,000 of taxpayers’ cash at his disposal? In due course such questions will be put to you by the general public.

You may have heard in the news recently that not following up evidence of financial irregularities is regarded as culpable by the prosecuting authorities.

 

The last sentence ends the relevant extracts.

 

 

Copies of the disclosures from Scottish Enterprise in July 2016 under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998 are attached.

Yours sincerely,

                                Eddie Cairns.

 

 

My letter dated 18 November 2016

 

Mr Eddie Cairns

72 Hillhouse Street

GLASGOW G21 4HP

18 November 2016                 

 

Information Management

Police Scotland

 

Dear Sir or Madam,

DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998

SECTION 10 NOTICE

The Scottish Police Authority advised me in a letter dated 14 November 2016 to direct to Police Scotland my concerns about inaccurate information.

The letter I originally sent to the SPA detailing my concerns and copies of letters to which reference is made in that letter are attached.

Further inaccuracies have come to light in respect of the application to Police Scotland of a recommendation by the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland to Strathclyde Police.

 

You will know that on 15 November 2016 Police Scotland confirmed to me in a formal response to a request for information under the terms of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 that Police Scotland does not hold information indicating that a recommendation by the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland to Strathclyde Police should be applied to Police Scotland.

 

In accordance with section 10 of the Data Protection Act I want Police Scotland to correct these inaccuracies and to stop processing information about me based upon the inaccuracies within a reasonable time.

If such processing continues without the inaccuracies being corrected this is likely to cause me unwarranted or substantial damage or distress.

I am legally entitled to a formal response from Police Scotland on this matter within 21 days.

Yours faithfully,

                                Eddie Cairns.

 

 

My letter dated 2 December 2016

 

 Mr Eddie Cairns

72 Hillhouse Street

GLASGOW G21 4HP

2 December 2016

 

 

Superintendent John Laing

Professional Standards Department

Police Headquarters Scotland

P.O. Box 21184

ALLOA FK10 9DE

 

Your ref     CO/04179/16 West/D EM

 

Dear Mr Laing,

On the matter of new evidence of criminality emanating from Scottish Enterprise in 2016 I wrote to the Chief Constable on 29 November 2016 requesting that the police report in respect of new evidence about this case, especially the documentary evidence emanating from Scottish Enterprise in 2016, is submitted to an independent and impartial arbiter, not to the COPFS.

 

Shortly thereafter I received confirmation that this matter has been passed to Deputy Chief Constable Livingstone's office for consideration.

A copy of my request is attached.

Yours sincerely,

                                 Eddie Cairns.

 

My letter dated 6 December 2016

Mr Eddie Cairns

72 Hillhouse Street

GLASGOW G21 4HP

6 December 2016

 

Superintendent John Laing

Professional Standards Department

Police Headquarters Scotland

P.O. Box 21184

ALLOA FK10 9DE

 

Your ref     CO/04179/16 West/D JL

 

Dear Mr Laing,

Thank you for your letter dated 30 November 2016 and for the helpful clarifications therein.

 

I did not know that your letter to me dated 11 November 2016 was in respect of the matters that had been referred to the COPFS by the PIRC. Of course I welcome that development.

 

However, I am concerned about one point in your letter.

 

Unfortunately you appear to have misunderstood the point about me supposedly wanting to add a ‘failure’ to my formal complaint against the Deputy Chief Constable responsible for the maintenance of professional standards that you define as ‘having previously received a letter from Police Scotland stating that you would not receive further correspondence and then subsequently receiving correspondence from Police Scotland’.

 

In fact the failure in question was the Deputy Chief Constable’s predetermined failure to respond to any letter from me that I may have written in accordance with the COPFS’s suggestion that I may wish to raise with Police Scotland the matter of no report having been submitted to the COPFS about Scottish Enterprise.

 

Yours sincerely,

                              Eddie Cairns.

 

My letter dated 11 December 2016

Mr Eddie Cairns

72 Hillhouse Street

GLASGOW G21 4HP

11 December 2016

 

 

Superintendent John Laing

Professional Standards Department

Police Headquarters Scotland

P.O. Box 21184

ALLOA FK10 9DE

 

Your ref     CO/04179/16 West/D JL

 

Dear Mr Laing,

I refer to the following section in your letter to me dated 30 November 2016, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

 

........ I further note your request for Police Scotland to give proper and adequate

consideration to new evidence of financial irregularities in Scottish Enterprise

and provide a comprehensive report in relation to these matters to the PF and

as a result, you will withdraw all your complaints against the police. However

as you have made an allegation of criminal conduct by police officers and an

investigation into this matter has been instructed by the PF, I can confirm that

this is the matter which will be subject of investigation and a report will be

forwarded to the Procurator Fiscal in due course.

 

This section of your letter thereby indicates that Police Scotland will only be investigating alleged criminal conduct by police officers.

 

I request that you reconsider your stated position.

 

As you will know, in a report published in October 2016 the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner considered that insufficient enquiry had been made into my complaint about a senior police officer and that the Scottish Police Authority’s response was not adequately reasoned as it did not provide an explanation of the relevant regulations and procedures adopted by the SPA in considering my complaint.

 

A few relevant extracts from that report are reproduced below for your consideration, in italics for convenience:

 

In 1993 the applicant made an allegation of fraud against members of staff at his then employer. An investigation was conducted by [Legacy Force X] and a report was sent to the Procurator Fiscal who determined that no proceedings would be taken. Between 2001 and 2010, the applicant made a number of complaints about the handling of that investigation.

 

The applicant was dissatisfied with the police findings of the subsequent complaint investigation ......

 

The PIRC has examined the applicant’s letters of 26 June 2012, 1 July 2012 and 9 July 2012. The letter of 26 June 2012 is titled ‘complaint’, the letters of 1 July 2012 and 9 July 2012 are titled ‘complaint against the Chief Constable of [Legacy Force X]’. Notwithstanding the titles of the letters of 1 and 9 July, the PIRC considers that the content of the letters does relate to the previous matters considered in the PCCS review of 2010 and, in particular, to the 1993 fraud investigation aspect of the review.

 

...... It would therefore appear that the purpose of the applicant’s complaint was to have Police Scotland consider further material he considered relevant to the 1993 fraud investigation.

 

ACC B in his response to the complaint highlights that Police Scotland are considering the new material the applicant has brought to them in respect of the fraud investigation, and, that should the material have any evidential value it would be reported to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.

 

....... as Police Scotland has now responded to the applicant and taken appropriate action to consider the ‘new material’ provided by the applicant, it would be disproportionate to recommend that the SPA take any further action.

 

 

According to the PIRC report, as insufficient enquiry was carried out, and as the response was not adequately reasoned, it was concluded that the complaint was not dealt with to a reasonable standard.

 

Importantly, as shown above, the PIRC also stated in this report that the senior police officer in question had highlighted that Police Scotland are considering the new material I brought to them in respect of the fraud investigation, and, that should the material have any evidential value it would be reported to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.

 

As you can verify with reference to information available to you, Police Scotland’s records confirm that the fraud investigation in question is in respect of Scottish Enterprise.

 

Consequently, the PIRC already confirmed that Police Scotland will not only be investigating alleged criminal conduct by police officers but will also be considering the new material I submitted to Police Scotland in respect of the Scottish Enterprise fraud investigation.

 

Your stated position appears not to be in accordance with the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner’s report and therefore I request that you reconsider your stated position.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

                                 Eddie Cairns.     

 

 

 

 

My letter dated 6 January 2017

Mr Eddie Cairns

72 Hillhouse Street

GLASGOW G21 4HP

6 January 2017                 

 

Mr Andrew Bell

Chief Inspector

Professional Standards Department

Police Scotland

P. O. Box 21184

ALLOA FK10 9DE

 

 

Your ref: MI/00476/16

 

Dear Mr Bell,

DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998

SECTION 10 NOTICE

In support of my assertions relating to point 4 of the listed inaccuracies I have added important notes to the letter I sent to the SPA dated 26 August 2016 a copy of which is attached to assist your assessment.

Yours sincerely,

                                Eddie Cairns.

 

My letter dated 7 January 2017

 

Mr Eddie Cairns

72 Hillhouse Street

GLASGOW G21 4HP

7 January 2017                 

 

Mr Andrew Bell

Chief Inspector

Professional Standards Department

Police Scotland

P. O. Box 21184

ALLOA FK10 9DE

 

 

Your ref: MI/00476/16

 

Dear Mr Bell,

DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998

SECTION 10 NOTICE

Thank you for the updates.

In support of my assertions relating to points 3, 5, 6 and 7 of the listed inaccuracies I have added further important notes to the letter I sent to the SPA dated 26 August 2016 a copy of which is attached to assist your assessment.

Yours sincerely,

                                Eddie Cairns.

 

My letter to the SPA dated 26 August 2016

Mr Eddie Cairns

72 Hillhouse Street

GLASGOW G21 4HP

26 August 2016

 

Information Management

Scottish Police Authority

1 Pacific Quay

GLASGOW G51 1DZ

 

Reference:  DPA 003 - 2016

 

Dear Sir or Madam,

DATA PROTECTION ACT SECTION 10 NOTICE

Thank you for your letter dated 24 August 2016.

The information I believe to be factually inaccurate and that may cause me unwarranted and substantial damage or unwarranted and substantial distress is reproduced below in italics for convenience and I have added my comments in plain type:

 

1.     You initially contacted Strathclyde Police in 1993 to report allegations of fraudulent accountancy practices by employees within Scottish Enterprise. These allegations were investigated at the time and a report was sent to the Procurator Fiscal who determined that no proceedings would be taken, you then repeated your allegation of fraud and made criminal allegations against the police officer who investigated the matter. These allegations were also considered by the Procurator Fiscal and the Area Procurator Fiscal on more than one occasion resulting in no proceedings being taken in relation to the alleged fraud or the actions of any police officer.’

 

I presented information and evidence to the SPA showing that the police did not investigate this case. They adopted the manifestly defective Scottish Enterprise report and thereby concealed material evidence in a criminal conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

 

New evidence arose in July 2016 in support of my position. The details were provided in my letter to the SPA dated 8 July 2016 and again on 28 July 2016 containing the new evidence as attachments which also have relevance for this process. I have attached the new evidence again.

Evidence previously submitted to the SPA indicated that the report that was sent to the Procurator Fiscal was the defective report prepared by Scottish Enterprise.

 

Alternatively no report was submitted to the Procurator Fiscal. 

In particular, the new evidence proves that ACC Nicolson issued falsehoods in respect of the original investigation and subsequent reviews therefore he had a corrupt motive for failing to ensure that I was contacted, to cover up his own failures.

The new evidence also exposes the PCCS’s report dated August 2010, in which the recommendation in question in this case was made, as having been founded upon several significant falsehoods. 

Some extracts from my letter to the SPA dated 8 July 2016 on the subject of this new evidence are reproduced below, underlined for convenience:

 

 

3.          Mr Scott’s inclusions of the Strathclyde Police report on Enterprise Ayrshire and other productions in the scanned documents he sent to Police Scotland on 15 April 2016, which report Scottish Enterprise knows was in fact produced by one of their accountants Ms Mandy Dickson and not by the police at all, give rise to some important considerations:

 

     (a)     The police informed me that their copy of this report had been destroyed several years ago, around the year 2000.

 

Its provision to Police Scotland by Scottish Enterprise now permits perusal of its contents in the light of the available evidence.        

 

     (b)     The first matter of concern is the amount of evidence concealed by Scottish Enterprise and the police, including in the recent review, as already detailed above and further detailed below.         

 

     (c)     In his communication with DC Stewart Mr Scott included a scanned copy of my reconciliation showing the omission of the £187,069 in question from the company’s balance sheet as at 2 July 1993.

 

The report falsely stated that there was no evidence that this reconciliation had been carried out.

 

     (d)     In his communication with DC Stewart Mr Scott included a scanned copy of my email to Mr Gary Tracey and Ms Janie Maxwell dated 17 August 1993 which stated the following, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

 

‘For the record, as I said to you both today, I am not comfortable with your instruction to exclude from Enterprise Ayrshire’s balance sheet funds received from the EC.’

‘Your comment that the management accounts do not matter so much, being produced only for internal use, seems to underplay the potentially serious consequences of circulating figures that are incorrect.’

‘I stated to you both that I know this aspect of Scottish Enterprise’s finances is under investigation by the National Audit Office therefore you must accept my concern as genuine.’

‘I have been advised that such omissions from management accounts are in breach of the Institute’s ethical guidelines.’  

 

The report completely excluded this very important evidence.

 

    (e)     In his communication with DC Stewart Mr Scott included a scanned copy of the extract from the manual cash book showing the following words at the record of £187,069 received on 25 June 1993, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

 

‘NO JOURNAL REQUIRED AS PER G.TRACEY’

 

The report referred to a later version where the words ‘TO GO THROUGH JULY ACCOUNTS’ had been added.

 

The report offered no explanation for this note, which corroborated my allegation of having been instructed by Mr Gary Tracey to falsify the accounts in respect of this receipt from the European Regional Development Fund.

 

Further corroboration is provided by the actions of other finance staff who acted in accordance with Mr Tracey’s fraudulent instructions to falsify the accounts

 

(f)     In his communication with DC Stewart Mr Scott included a scanned copy of the SE report which concluded the following, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

 

 

‘The receipt of ERDF money was brought into the July financial ledger on 18 August. The money was received in June 1993 and should therefore have been accounted for in this month.’

 

 

This conclusion justifies my concern about the Enterprise Ayrshire accounts as they stood when I wrote my email on 17 August 1993.

 

In his communication with DC Stewart Mr Scott included a scanned copy of a press release in the following terms, reproduced here in italics for convenience:

 

 

‘STATEMENT GIVEN TO KIRSTY SCOTT, THE HERALD regarding allegations of mis-accounting at Enterprise Ayrshire’

‘Scottish Enterprise National took these allegations seriously, and investigated them thoroughly on the day that they were made. There is no substance to any of the allegations made regarding the receipt of European funds by Enterprise Ayrshire. Our enquiries are complete and there are no grounds for taking any action.’

 

‘Issued by the Press Office of Scottish Enterprise’

‘September 1, 1993’

 

Since the accounts had been corrected by £187,069 within hours of my written objections to the financial irregularities, plainly the press release was false.

 

Mr Scott included a scanned copy of this press release in his communication with DC Stewart. Clearly, Mr Scott is persisting in concealing material evidence and knowingly providing false information to the police to this day, a very grave matter.

 

 

2.     ‘As a result of your continued attempts to take legal action against Strathclyde Police you were declared a “vexatious litigant” under the terms of the Vexatious Actions (Scotland) Act 1898.’

 

There were in fact only two attempts to take legal action against Strathclyde Police. There were not ‘continued attempts’.

 

My complaint against ACC Nicolson included the following background details on this point:

 

‘SECTION 5’

‘I obtained important evidence in February 2003 and passed it on to the police.’

‘In July 2003 the police asked the Lord Advocate to raise a petition for me to be categorised as a vexatious litigant.’                     

‘Consequently from a very early stage the police and the Crown Office had no intention of reviewing properly this evidence. Instead they wanted to cover up the failures revealed in the evidence by having me legally disabled.’

‘The following statement was contained in a copy of a letter sent from the police to the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland dated 16 March 2009 which was disclosed to me in 2010 by the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998:’

‘‘In July 2003, the Force took out an Action against Mr Cairns to have him declared a Vexatious Litigant in terms of the Vexatious Actions (Scotland) Act 1878 (sic).’’   

‘However, the police were supposedly reviewing this case until 2008.’

‘The Legal Services Ombudsman for England and Wales concurred with the Faculty of Advocates’ Ms Valerie Stacey QC, now Lady Stacey, a judge at the Court of Session, who advised me that I had grounds for a formal complaint about the conduct of the Lord Advocate in this case for interfering with live civil actions and misdirecting the police.’

 

3.     ‘Between 2001 to 2009 you had written some 82 letters to Strathclyde Police in which you made both criminal and non-criminal complaints about police.’

 

I did not raise anything like 82 letters of complaint to the police. There were only 8 letters of complaint and 2 of those were quickly withdrawn by me in any event.


The police themselves admitted that there were not 82 letters of complaint and said that I should take the matter up with the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland, Professor John McNeill. He simply ignored my objections.


Nevertheless, his obduracy cannot turn a lie into the truth. Between 2001 to 2009 I had not written some 82 letters to Strathclyde Police in which I made both criminal and non-criminal complaints about police. [22]

 

4.     ‘The fact that the PCCS made a single recommendation that Strathclyde Police no longer consider or respond to any complaint raised by you that is directly related to your complaint “that Strathclyde Police did not conduct an independent investigation into allegations of fraud”, it was wholly appropriate that ACC Nicolson did not contact you.’

 

Was Mr Nicolson’s failure to follow the Chief Constable’s personal direction wholly appropriate? I would venture to suggest that a decision to disregard a direct instruction from the Chief Constable would require a rather more convincing basis than that offered by Mr Milne on behalf of Mr Nicolson.   

There is no record in the disclosures that ACC Nicolson or indeed anyone from Police Scotland actually stated that ACC Nicolson had unilaterally applied the PCCS’s recommendation rather than obey the command of a higher ranking officer.

A reasonable suspicion arises that Mr Milne did not get that argument from the Police themselves.

Mr Milne appears to have given no consideration whatsoever to the much more likely reason that I had submitted for ACC Nicolson’s failure to contact me, which was that Mr Nicolson did so in order to avoid consideration of his previous involvement in this case because he knew that his conduct would not stand up to any scrutiny.

In support of my complaint about ACC Nicolson I provided overwhelming evidence of falsehoods that Mr Nicolson had put into writing in this case in previous years along with details and evidence of other misconduct by Mr Nicolson.

Why did Mr Milne completely disregard all that important evidence?

I submit that the PCCS recommendation was directed at police complaints. It was not intended, nor could it lawfully be intended, to apply to the presentation of evidence that has not been adequately considered or has not been considered at all by the police.

 

Neither could the PCCS recommendation be applied to justify disregarding a proposed complaint about the Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police to the Strathclyde Police Authority, which is what happened in this case. 

 

Firstly, Mr Nicolson ought to have responded to the presentation of evidence that had not been adequately considered or had not been considered at all by the police.[23]

 

The application of the PCCS’s recommendation to nullify the consideration of evidence of criminality that has not been adequately considered or has not been considered at all by the police may reasonably be regarded as an attempt to pervert the course of justice.

 

The PCCS did not have the authority to nullify proper policing by means of any such recommendation and by relying upon the PCCS recommendation to disregard evidence of criminality that has not been properly considered Mr Nicolson failed to act in accordance with professional standards.

 

Such conduct amounted to no less than the deliberate concealment of material evidence in this case by ACC Nicolson, a very serious matter.

 

Secondly, Mr Nicolson’s reliance upon the PCCS recommendation to Strathclyde Police to justify disregarding the Chief Constable’s direction to ensure that I was contacted in respect of my correspondence, which included notification of my intention to raise a complaint about the Chief Constable, was clearly erroneous.

The PCCS had no authority to nullify a complaint to the Strathclyde Police Authority.

Therefore Mr Milne’s concurrence with ACC Nicolson’s failure to ensure that I was contacted in these circumstances had no reasonable basis.

It is axiomatic that a direct instruction from the Chief Constable, which was notified to me to have been given to ACC Nicolson, could not be automatically superseded by a recommendation from the PCCS.

The direct instruction from the Chief Constable indicated that the PCCS’s recommendation had not been followed in this case.

No retraction of the direction to ACC Nicolson to ensure that I was contacted has ever been notified to me.

 

Mr Nicolson has never ensured that I was contacted nor has he ever informed me why.

 

Separately, the recommendation from the PCCS was to Strathclyde Police, not to Police Scotland. Since I sent a reminder to the police on 8 May 2013, after Strathclyde Police had ceased to exist, ACC Nicolson’s continuing failure to ensure that I was contacted could not reasonably be attributed to following a recommendation to Strathclyde Police.

 

 

5.      ‘While you remain personally dissatisfied with the manner in which your letter was handled, it is not possible to infer misconduct allegations on the part of ACC Nicolson who was following the recommendation of the PCCS.

 

Evidence showing that beyond reasonable doubt ACC Nicolson concealed material evidence and perverted the course of justice in this case was submitted to the SPA in support of my complaint against ACC Nicolson.

The SPA statement that it is not possible to infer misconduct allegations on the part of ACC Nicolson who was following the recommendation of the PCCS is simply false.

It is certainly possible to allege misconduct on the part of ACC Nicolson whether or not he claims to have followed the recommendation of the PCCS.

I submitted substantial evidence to the SPA in support of an alternative reason for ACC Nicolson not ensuring that I was contacted, which was in order to avoid scrutiny of his earlier misconduct in this case, most importantly his falsehoods in respect of the original police investigation into this case.  [24]

These allegations are further confirmed with reference to the new evidence arising in July 2016 mentioned above.

 

 

6.    ‘The reason why ACC Nicolson did not respond was because Strathclyde Police had received the PCCS recommendation that they need not respond to you.’  [25]

 

It was a recommendation, not a directive. Any recommendation may be disregarded in particular circumstances. 

And the recommendation was to Strathclyde Police, not to Police Scotland.

No disclosures from the SPA contain any record of ACC Nicolson claiming to have followed the recommendation to Strathclyde Police.

 

7.     ‘In June 2012 you recommenced correspondence with Strathclyde Police, which resulted in a letter dated 5 July 2012 being sent to you by Superintendent Boyd, Professional Standards Department reminding you of the findings of the PCCS report re-emphasising that Strathclyde Police would not conduct further investigations into the circumstances contained within your original complaint.’  [26]

 

Mr Boyd himself in the same letter stated that it was up to me if I wanted to complain to the Strathclyde Police Authority about the conduct of the Chief Constable.

 

My letter to the Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police dated 9 July 2012 addressed this point in the following terms:

 

‘Dear Mr House,’

‘COMPLAINT AGAINST THE CHIEF CONSTABLE OF STRATHCLYDE POLICE’

‘I refer to your response dated 5 July 2012, signed by what appears to be Superintendent James Boyd on your headed notepaper, to my letters dated 26 June 2012 and 1 July 2012.’

‘Firstly, the heading in your letter is inaccurate. I indicated that my complaint was about your personal failures and that if a reasonable response was not produced a complaint would be directed to the Strathclyde Police Authority, not to the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland. Consequently, you know that my letters did not constitute a general complaint about the police, contrary to the heading in your letter.’

 

Only three days later I was notified in an email from the Chief Constable that Mr Nicolson would ensure that I was contacted.

 

These false and damaging statements were communicated to me by Mr Stuart Milne in April 2016 and again in subject access disclosures in July 2016 and Mr Milne relied upon them to reject my complaint against ACC Nicolson which has caused me unwarranted and substantial damage and distress and can reasonably be expected to cause me further unwarranted and substantial damage and distress in the future.

Yours faithfully,

                               Eddie Cairns.

 

 

That ends the reproduced letters.

 

Yours sincerely,

                              Eddie Cairns.                       

 



[1]     In fact the civil action in question contained no reference whatsoever to DS Tom Forrest.
 
As I stated in my letter dated 4 August 2001 to DI John Riggans of Strathclyde Police the Maclay, Murray and Spens solicitor appears to have lied about that in order to get the compliance he sought from DS Forrest.
[2]       This appears to be an error. The reference to the Pursuers here ought to be to the Defenders.
 
Logically, Maclay Murray and Spens would not be writing to the Procurator Fiscal on my behalf.
 
[3]          As detailed herein the available evidence indicates that the police carried out no independent investigation in 1993.
 
Why did the police not challenge the Scottish Enterprise report which obviously concealed material evidence? Why did the police send a copy of that report to the government without correcting or commenting on its many defects?
 
On 11 June 2010 I received an email from Strathclyde Police with an attached letter dated 30 April 2010 in response to a complaint I had raised against Detective Inspector Graham Cowley on 1 April 2010.
That response from Strathclyde Police indicated that I was correct to state that Strathclyde Police had informed me that the 1993 police report had already been destroyed around 2000. 
Therefore Detective Chief Superintendent Ruaraidh Nicolson could not have had the 1993 police report available to him in 2008 to enable him to assert with any validity that Strathclyde Police had conducted a full and thorough investigation into my allegations when reported in 1993.
My letter of complaint to Strathclyde Police dated 23 September 2008 had included the following point in that regard:
‘Mr Nicolson falsely states that Strathclyde Police conducted a full and thorough investigation into my allegations when reported in 1993.’
 
[4]          Again, as detailed herein the available evidence indicates that the police carried out no independent investigation in 1993.
 
Evidence to which reference is made in section 4 above suggests that the Procurator Fiscal had not been adequately informed in this case even by 1999.
 
The Procurator Fiscal’s Office, Kilmarnock, informed me by letter on 6 February 2003, in response to my request for information dated 5 January 2003, that they did not appear to have received a report relative to this case.
 
 
[5]          In a letter to me dated 20 February 2004 Strathclyde Police’s DI Robertson had undertaken to contact me to arrange a further meeting at my home address, to go over certain points and to arrange copies of documents.
Although I reminded Strathclyde Police of this by telephone and in writing on 21 July 2004 no such contact was ever made and no copies of documents were taken.
The investigation that was live at that time was abruptly terminated in 2005 and was clearly defective as a result of this and other failures.
 
[6]       By mid 2003 the police had already asked the Lord Advocate to raise a petition for me to be categorised as a vexatious litigant.  Any notion that the police intended reviewing the evidence properly in 2004 in those circumstances is not credible.
 
And again, the police already informed me that the 1993 police report had already been destroyed around 2000. 
 
Therefore Detective Chief Superintendent Ruaraidh Nicolson could not have had the 1993 police report available to him in 2008 to enable him to assert with any validity that it was established that all the evidential factors I had identified were known to the Police and the Procurator Fiscal in 1994 and informed the decision by the Procurator Fiscal not to progress the enquiry.    
 
[7]          On the contrary the available evidence indicates that Strathclyde Police did not conduct a full and thorough investigation into my allegations when reported in 1993. 
 
 
[8]          Perusal of the 1993 report reveals these statements to be false. All the documentary evidence and witness statements that I had provided to the police in 1993 were completely omitted from the report as detailed further on below.
And the report itself had been prepared hurriedly and carelessly by Ms Mandy Dickson of Scottish Enterprise instead of by the police.
In any event Strathclyde Police have already admitted that DI Cowley could not have had the 1993 police report available to him because it was already destroyed.
 
This proves that my allegation was correct that DI Cowley had falsely stated with reference to my letters in May 2009 that ‘none of these contain any information not previously considered during the initial Police investigation in 1993’. No such comparison could have been made by DI Cowley.
 
 
[9]          The police had already asked the Lord Advocate to raise a petition for me to be categorised as a vexatious litigant in July 2003. Any notion that the police intended reviewing the evidence properly in 2004 and 2008 in those circumstances is not credible.
 
 
 
 
[10]       The investigating accountant made no contact with me whatsoever in order to ensure that all the facts were obtained, and most significantly she falsely held that there was no evidence that the reconciliation to the financial ledger had been carried out.
 
That was a major blunder which rendered her investigation and report fundamentally defective.
 
 
[11]         Unsurprisingly since Ms Dickson did not contact me at all this is not an accurate description of what I had alleged.
 
I alleged that I had been instructed to overlook in my account reconciliation work the deliberate omission from the accounts of a cash grant for £187,069 received on 25 June 1993 by electronic transfer from the European Regional Development Fund.
 
I alleged that the reason for doing so was to gain interest that would otherwise not be gained.
 
I also alleged that I was threatened with dismissal when I declined to comply.
 
 
[12]              But the cash had been received in June 1993 and ought to have been entered into the accounts in that month.  The accounts for July 1993 that had been presented to me for reconciliation still excluded the cash.
 
 
[13]          Actually, one of the accounts, as disclosures from the Scottish Government verify, was not in the name of Enterprise Ayrshire but was in the name of Mr Gary Tracey, one of my supervisors. This is the person that the evidence shows had instructed the falsifications.
 
 
[14]          This was a handwritten entry in the manual cash book which then required to be journalised into the computer financial ledger. It was this journalising of the cash in question into the computer financial ledger that was not carried out and which resulted in £187,069 of taxpayers’ cash being fraudulently claimed by Enterprise Ayrshire and Scottish Enterprise.  
 
[15]          Clearly, such a note supported my allegation that the omission was deliberate, not an oversight. 
As disclosures from the Scottish Government confirm, the original note here did not include the words ‘To go through July accounts’.
 
Since the £187,069 was re-deposited in a high interest bank account on 3 August 1993 while still omitted from the computer financial ledger whereas it ought to have been transferred to Scottish Enterprise in the month following receipt, there was no intention of handling this money in accordance with correct procedure until I raised my objection in writing on 17 August 1993.
 
 
[16]          My specific allegations were true but were covered up and in the morning after my written objection to the financial irregularities the correction was made.
This was a very significant correction to the accounts, amounting to £187,069 of taxpayers’ money.
Scottish Enterprise’s press release stating that there had been no grounds for taking any action was a deliberate lie that the police did not challenge.
Clearly the correction to the accounts was forced by my crucial email dated 17 August 1993 to my supervisors in Enterprise Ayrshire, Mr Gary Tracey and Ms Janie Maxwell but the report makes no mention of this email which stated:
‘For the record, as I said to you both today, I am not comfortable with your instruction to exclude from Enterprise Ayrshire’s balance sheet funds received from the EC.’
‘Your comment that the management accounts do not matter so much, being produced only for internal use, seems to underplay the potentially serious consequences of circulating figures that are incorrect.’
‘I stated to you both that I know this aspect of Scottish Enterprise’s finances is under investigation by the National Audit Office therefore you must accept my concern as genuine.’
‘I have been advised that such omissions from management accounts are in breach of the Institute’s ethical guidelines.’  
There was no mention in the investigating accountant’s report that I had been questioning the omission in my reconciliation work and had objected in writing to the instruction to comply.
 
However, contrary to what had appeared in the press, the report did at least confirm my allegation that the money had been received in June 1993 and should have been entered in that month but had not been entered into the accounts until 18 August 1993.
But no plausible explanation was given in the report for this delay. One could justifiably ask why there was no reason elicited by the investigator. Why had staff who routinely made the entries for cash receipts and payments omitted to do so in this case? Documentary evidence and even the report’s confirmation that there was a note blocking the journal entry support my allegation that it was because they had been instructed to do so by one of my supervisors, Mr Gary Tracey. He had also tried to incite me to enter into a conspiracy to falsify the accounts in respect of this money.
The Scottish Enterprise report had either entirely excluded reference to important documents and witness statements or had disregarded important details contained in the available documents.
The email dated 17 August 1993 supported my version of events. Further evidence supporting my version of events included a copy of an extract from the cash book containing the written instruction ‘NO JOURNAL REQUIRED AS PER G. TRACEY’ for the £187,069 in question and copies of documents recording transfers of this cash through a succession of high interest bank accounts with bank statements including the abnormal comments ‘STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL’ and ‘ALL ENQUIRIES TO GARY TRACEYTO ANDREW DOWNIE  NO-ONE ELSE’.
The cash came to rest in a bank account in the name of ‘GARY TRACEY C/O ENTERPRISE AYRSHIRE’, which means it was held in the name of my supervisor Mr Gary Tracey personally, at the address of Enterprise Ayrshire.
The significance of these important details was disregarded in the Scottish Enterprise report, which instead had falsely implied in its text, but did not specifically state in its conclusion, that the omission of the £187,069 may have been an oversight due to a reconciliation not having been carried out.   
 
[17]         The police knew that this statement was false.
 
My letter dated 19 August 1993 to Detective Superintendent Ferrie, Strathclyde Police, began as follows:
‘Dear Mr Ferrie,’
‘A set of documents is enclosed showing the omission of a receipt from the EC of £187,069 in the balance sheet of Enterprise Ayrshire.’
The investigating accountant was mistaken on this point, having apparently only sought evidence of reconciliations in the cash section at Enterprise Ayrshire, having neglected to contact me for relevant information and having disregarded the evidence that I gave to the police, possibly because I posted the evidence first class on 19 August 1993 and Ms Dickson’s report was dated 20 August 1993.
 
However, the same evidence was of course also available on the premises of Enterprise Ayrshire. My regular monthly reconciliations to the financial ledger were held in the Enterprise Ayrshire Excel files at my workstation and the reconciliation in question had been forwarded to Mr Gary Tracey by email showing the discrepancy in the first accounting month in which it had arisen, June 1993.
 
A reasonable suspicion could arise in the mind of an independent observer that the managers and finance staff involved concealed material evidence from investigators, a very serious matter in the context of a criminal investigation.
 
 
[18]         Again, the police knew that this statement was false.
 
My letter dated 19 August 1993 to Detective Superintendent Ferrie, Strathclyde Police, began as follows:
‘Dear Mr Ferrie,
A set of documents is enclosed showing the omission of a receipt from the EC of £187,069 in the balance sheet of Enterprise Ayrshire.’
A discrepancy of £187,069 had indeed arisen and had been questioned by me in respect of accounting months June (verbally) and July 1993 (verbally and by email).
 
[19]      Again, the police knew that this statement was false.
 
My letter dated 19 August 1993 to Detective Superintendent Ferrie, Strathclyde Police, began as follows:
‘Dear Mr Ferrie,
A set of documents is enclosed showing the omission of a receipt from the EC of £187,069 in the balance sheet of Enterprise Ayrshire.’
 
[20]       Again, the police knew that this statement was false.
 
There was indeed evidence that this reconciliation had been carried out.
My letter dated 19 August 1993 to Detective Superintendent Ferrie, Strathclyde Police, began as follows:
‘Dear Mr Ferrie,
A set of documents is enclosed showing the omission of a receipt from the EC of £187,069 in the balance sheet of Enterprise Ayrshire.’
I had of course taken copies of relevant documents to protect my position since I had encountered manifest criminality in Enterprise Ayrshire and had been threatened with dismissal for objecting to the malpractice.
 
 
[21]          This conclusion justifies my concern about the Enterprise Ayrshire accounts as they stood when I wrote my email on 17 August 1993.
 
Attached to the 1993 report were several documents one of which was a press release in the following terms:
 
 
‘STATEMENT GIVEN TO KIRSTY SCOTT, THE HERALD regarding allegations of mis-accounting at Enterprise Ayrshire’
‘Scottish Enterprise National took these allegations seriously, and investigated them thoroughly on the day that they were made. There is no substance to any of the allegations made regarding the receipt of European funds by Enterprise Ayrshire. Our enquiries are complete and there are no grounds for taking any action.’
 
‘Issued by the Press Office of Scottish Enterprise’
‘September 1, 1993’
 
Since the accounts had been corrected by £187,069 and the public funds that were required reduced accordingly within hours of my written objections, plainly the press release was false.
 
 
[22]     The following relevant points were contained in my letter to the PCCS dated 24 September 2010, reproduced here in italics for convenience:
 
I refer to your letter dated 21 September 2010 in which you list 82 letters that I sent to Strathclyde Police which you purport to be in response to my letter to the Commissioner dated 19 September 2010.
But my letter dated 19 September 2010 had included the following:
 
‘A simple proof would settle this issue.’
 
‘Please provide a list of the 82 complaints references allocated to these 82 complaints by Strathclyde Police and copies of the 82 responses from Strathclyde Police on which public resources were apparently wasted according to your report.’
 
Clearly, your list of my letters to Strathclyde Police does not provide what I had requested as proof of your assertions.
I requested the 82 complaints references allocated by Strathclyde Police to these supposed 82 complaints and I requested copies of the 82 responses from Strathclyde Police on which scarce public resources were apparently wasted according to the PCCS report.
You have not provided these proofs.
I have reproduced below the numbered list of letters you provided and I have marked against each letter whether or not it was a police complaint:
 
1.   23/01/2009        Not a complaint
2.   16/08/2008        Not a complaint
3.   06/08/2008        Not a complaint
4.   04/08/2008        Not a complaint
5.   03/08/2008        Not a complaint
6.   02/08/2008        Not a complaint
7.   01/08/2008        Not a complaint
8.   01/08/2008        Not a complaint
9.   31/07/2008        Not a complaint
10.  28/07/2008       Not a complaint
11.   28/07/2008       Not a complaint
12.   28/07/2008       Not a complaint
13.   26/07/2008       Not a complaint
14.   24/07/2008       A complaint
 15.   18/07/2008      Not a complaint   
16.   27/02/2007       Not a complaint        
17.   20/02/2007       Not a complaint
18.   19/02/2007       A complaint
19.   22/01/2007       Not a complaint
20.   14/02/2006       Not a complaint
21.   13/02/2006       Not a complaint
22.   11/02/2006       Not a complaint
23.   14/02/2005       Not a complaint
24.   31/01/2005       Not a complaint
25.   30/01/2005       A complaint
26.   18/01/2005       Not a complaint
27.   10/12/2004       Not a complaint
28.   18/11/2004       Not a complaint
29.   28/10/2004       Not a complaint
30.   23/09/2004       Not a complaint
31.   28/08/2004       Not a complaint
32.   12/08/2004       A complaint
33.   21/07/2004       Not a complaint
34.   09/07/2004       Not a complaint
35.   02/03/2004       Not a complaint
36.   31/01/2004       Not a complaint
37.   26/04/2003       Not a complaint
38.   07/03/2003       Not a complaint
39.   24/02/2003       Not a complaint
40.   13/02/2004       Not a complaint
41.   08/02/2003       Not a complaint
42.   07/02/2003       Not a complaint
43.   28/01/2003       Not a complaint
44.   28/01/2003       Not a complaint
45.   22/01/2003       A complaint
46.   14/01/2003       Not a complaint      
47.   13/01/2003       Not a complaint
48.   27/12/2002       Not a complaint
49.   20/12/2002       Not a complaint
50.   17/12/2002       Not a complaint
51.   27/04/2002       Not a complaint      
52.   25/04/2002       Not a complaint
53.   24/04/2002       Not a complaint
54.   17/04/2002       Not a complaint
55.   12/04/2002       Not a complaint
56.   12/04/2002       Not a complaint
57.   08/04/2002       A complaint
58.   06/04/2002       A complaint 
59.   04/04/2002       A complaint
60.   03/04/2002       Not a complaint
61.   03/04/2002       Not a complaint
62.   03/04/2002       Not a complaint
63.   02/04/2002       Not a complaint
64.   01/04/2002       Not a complaint
65.   01/04/2002       Not a complaint
66.   29/03/2002       Not a complaint
67.   24/03/2002       Not a complaint
68.   27/03/2002       Not a complaint
69.   24/03/2002       Not a complaint
70.   19/03/2002       Not a complaint
71.   16/03/2002       Not a complaint
72.   14/03/2002       Not a complaint
73.   14/03/2002       Not a complaint
74.   08/08/2001       Not a complaint
75.   04/08/2001       Not a complaint
76.   03/08/2001       Not a complaint
77.   02/08/2001       Not a complaint
78.   31/07/2001       Not a complaint
79.   31/07/2001       Not a complaint
80.   31/07/2001       Not a complaint
81.   30/07/2001       Not a complaint
82.   28/07/2001       Not a complaint
There are 8 police complaints in this list, not 82. That averages about one complaint every two years since this significant case arose. And Strathclyde Police even failed to respond to some of these few complaints. 
Your pretence that Strathclyde Police handled 82 complaints from me and that a considerable amount of public money was wasted responding to 82 complaints is simply not true.
Since this aspect of the PCCS’s report has been highlighted by the press and since it appears to be the basis for the recommendation in the report restricting my access to the complaints system this falsehood has caused me considerable damage.
Everyone who has instigated or repeated such damaging defamatory statements about me knowing that these are based upon falsehoods is personally liable for that malicious conduct, as I have already warned the PCCS.
My status as a vexatious litigant, currently the subject of a formal complaint to the Scottish Government in any event as you already know, does not totally exclude me from the legal process. I only have to present any proposed action to a judge in the Court of Session first for confirmation that the action is not vexatious.
The Court of Session normally responds to such a request within a few days therefore actions against those who persist in malicious falsehoods about me could be served in a relatively short time.
I am very experienced in drafting and presenting such actions in Sheriff Courts and in the Court of Session. One of those previous actions was featured in the Journal of the Law Society of Scotland and was reviewed in the Herald. That case was certainly not regarded as vexatious and it came very close to costing a director of Scottish Enterprise over £400,000 plus expenses. It only failed on a technicality about jurisdiction. No such technicality would arise in the proposed cases.
In view of the very serious nature of the above and its relevance to wider issues in this case I have copied this letter to Strathclyde Police, to Scottish Enterprise, to the Scottish Government’s Ms Stella Manzie, Director General Justice and Communities, to Audit Scotland, to Mr Bob Doris MSP and to the Crown Office.
This is clearly a matter of public interest that would tend to undermine the public’s confidence in the administration of justice, justice not having been seen to be done.
This letter has therefore been put into the public domain as is entirely appropriate in these circumstances.
 
 
[23]     My letter to the Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police dated 1 July 2012                 contained the following significant statement, reproduced here in italics for convenience:
In particular, serious allegations of criminality involving senior members of Crown Office staff and others were included in my letters therefore prompt, appropriate and effective action ought to have been taken.
My letter to the Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police dated 9 July 2012                 contained the following significant statements, reproduced here in italics for convenience:
Your assertion that Strathclyde Police has fulfilled the statutory requirements in respect of investigating my complaints is therefore false. For example, Strathclyde Police made no request for any other force to investigate the important allegations of its own officers perverting the course of justice. Neither did Strathclyde Police make any attempt to arrange for an independent and impartial investigation into the allegations against senior employees of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. Does Strathclyde Police regard these individuals as above the law?
Of course, statutory requirements would clearly include compliance with the Human Rights Act 1998 and in particular with article 6, ECHR, which you have not respected at all.
The statement in your letter that ‘these matters are concluded’ merely proclaims your disturbing disregard for the rule of law and your utter disdain for the interests of justice. Justice in this case has most definitely not been seen to be done. 
The PCCS wrote to me on 3 June 2010 including the following statement:
‘On this basis the PCCS will not be re-referring your allegations to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.’
Since the PCCS had already indicated that he has never referred any of my allegations to the COPFS this assertion about not ‘re-referring’ my allegations was misleading. However, it confirms that the criminal allegations were not referred by the PCCS to the COPFS or indeed to any relevant authority for proper investigation. 
When I encountered this fraud in Scottish Enterprise in 1993 I acted completely in accordance with the ethical accounting guidelines of my professional body, the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants. I properly objected to the deliberate exclusion from Scottish Enterprise’s balance sheet of £187,069 that had been received from the European Regional Development Fund. My supervisors plainly told me that this was to gain interest for 6 months that otherwise would not be gained, a straight fraud that I was invited to join but declined to join, to the fury of those crooked supervisors and managers, named herein.  
In truth, any independent observer would be hard pressed to discern the slightest commitment on your part to one of your primary duties, the effective investigation of alleged criminality. The initial approach I made to Strathclyde Police resulted in no investigation by the police whatsoever. The so-called police report was in fact prepared by Scottish Enterprise and was obviously rigged. Crucial evidence had been concealed.
I have a copy of that report. I can prove that it was in fact prepared by Scottish Enterprise, not by Strathclyde Police at all.
The only narrative is a copy of the original single page Scottish Enterprise report which concluded:
‘The receipt of ERDF money was brought into the July financial ledger on 18 August. The money was received in June 1993 and should therefore have been accounted for in this month.’
The so-called police report completely omitted my witness statements and the evidence I had provided to Strathclyde Police, not least my email dated 17 August 1993 in which I had stated the following:
‘For the record, as I said to you both today, I am not comfortable with your instruction to exclude from Enterprise Ayrshire’s balance sheet funds received from the EC.’
‘Your comment that the management accounts do not matter so much, being produced only for internal use, seems to underplay the potentially serious consequences of circulating figures that are incorrect.’
‘I stated to you both that I know this aspect of Scottish Enterprise’s finances is under investigation by the National Audit Office therefore you must accept my concern as genuine.’
‘I have been advised that such omissions from management accounts are in breach of the Institute’s ethical guidelines.’  
This memorandum supported my version of events but both reports entirely omitted it.
The cash came to rest in a bank account in the name of ‘GARY TRACEY C/O ENTERPRISE AYRSHIRE’, which means it was held in the name of my supervisor Gary Tracey personally, at the address of Enterprise Ayrshire.
The significance of these important details was disregarded in the so-called police report and in the Scottish Enterprise report, which instead had falsely implied in its text, but did not specifically state in its conclusion, that the omission of the £187,069 may have been an oversight due to a reconciliation not having been carried out. In fact Scottish Enterprise knew that I had prepared the reconciliation as part of my monthly duties and I gave a copy of it to Strathclyde Police on 19 August 1993, the day after my contract had been abruptly terminated.  
Withholding relevant evidence from a police report is of course a very grave matter indeed, being an attempt to pervert the course of justice.
All my specific allegations were found to be true and within hours of my written objection to the financial irregularities the correction was made. That was a very significant amendment to the accounts, amounting to £187,069 of taxpayers’ money. Scottish Enterprise’s public statement that there had been no grounds for taking any action was a deliberate and blatant lie that Strathclyde Police did absolutely nothing to challenge.
When I obtained further important evidence and passed it on to Strathclyde Police in 2003 the police took prompt action, to have me categorised as a vexatious litigant, which was utterly disgraceful.
In 2003, 2004 and 2005 a prolonged review purportedly being carried out by the police was improperly interfered with by attempts to secure that categorisation, which was not at all justified especially in view of the fact that the same allegations as were alleged to have been vexatious were simultaneously supposedly being investigated in a criminal context.
New evidence that I obtained since September 2008 indicates serious failures by Strathclyde Police in carrying out the original investigation into my allegations of financial irregularities in Enterprise Ayrshire in 1993 and in carrying out subsequent reviews of that investigation.
Strathclyde Police’s relatively recent assertions that all the documentary evidence submitted by me in recent years had been available to the police in 1993 indicates that the police did not handle that evidence properly because that evidence was not passed on to the Procurator Fiscal according to clarifications provided to me. 
Clarifications obtained from the Procurator Fiscal in 2005 included an assertion that I was the only witness to the alleged financial irregularities in 1993.
Documentary evidence available to the police since 1993 according to the new evidence detailed above contains references to Mr Gary Tracey, Ms Janie Maxwell, Mr Andrew Downie and Ms Alison Norton.
Since the Procurator Fiscal has maintained since 2005 that I was the only witness to the financial irregularities in 1993 the police appear not to have passed on this evidence to the Procurator Fiscal. Alternatively, employees in the COPFS acted improperly by concealing relevant evidence.
I was given the following very important advice by the COPFS for the first time in a letter dated 15 April 2011:
‘In response to your query as to why allegations of criminal conduct made by you regarding COPFS employees have not been referred to Crown Counsel, I can advise that none of the allegations made by you amounted to conduct of a criminal nature.’
My letters raised the very important new substantive issue that the COPFS appear to have dishonestly refused to handle my allegations against COPFS employees properly and that this has been perpetrated by COPFS employees falsely pretending that the criminal allegations submitted were not criminal allegations. The general public already know that the alleged actions listed in my letters do amount to allegations of criminality.
Your effective concurrence with the COPFS’s abject failure to address my genuine concerns indicates that you have effectively entered into the existing conspiracy to pervert the course of justice in this case.   
The COPFS’s angle that I was the only witness to the original financial irregularities, which was insufficient for a prosecution, remains an outstanding very significant falsehood.
I did not make any entry in the accounts in respect of the £187,069 of public money in question. I did not make any arrangements for the transfers of the cash, over a period of a week, through three separate bank accounts while the money was excluded from the balance sheet.
How was I the only witness? Were the financial manipulations as revealed in the available documentary evidence conjured up by Harry Potter? Or was it Paul Daniels?
What about the names on the documents recording the financial manipulations and my objections? The names that appear are Andrew Downie, Gary Tracey, Janie Maxwell and Alison Norton.
I also provided the name of Valery Spence, who had been instructed by Gary Tracey not to enter the cash into the accounts at the time of its receipt.
In truth the COPFS’s reason given for not proceeding has no basis in fact or in law. I was plainly not the only witness and the COPFS’s disgraceful persistence in this obvious lie should be properly investigated in the public interest and in the interests of justice.   
The police have in reality wasted an enormous amount of public money in this case trying to suppress the truth and cover for the wrongdoers.
My case effectively raises the issue of the fundamental integrity of the Scottish justice system. I have had almost 30,000 hits on my Scottish Justice blog and public support for me is steadily growing. In fact the general public UK wide can reasonably be regarded as very concerned indeed about the police apparently not doing their job properly, as reported in respect of some highly significant cases.  
Your own conduct appears to have been grossly negligent in view of the very serious allegations that were detailed in my correspondence and sent to you personally because of the grave nature of the allegations. You seem to have completely failed to take appropriate action to have those allegations properly investigated, not least in respect of the operation of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice involving senior managers in Scottish Enterprise, senior Strathclyde Police officers and senior employees of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.
Since the allegations, supported by documentary evidence, included several instances of senior Strathclyde Police officers conspiring to pervert the course of justice you ought to have arranged for another force to carry out a prompt, effective, independent and impartial investigation. Further, since very serious allegations had been made in respect of senior employees of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service the force that you should have approached to investigate that matter ought to have been from another jurisdiction.
Consequently, since your failures as detailed above are very serious indeed I have written to the Strathclyde Police Authority to raise a formal complaint against you.
 
[24]     An extract from the background information I provided for that complaint is reproduced below in italics for convenience:
 
 
SECTION 6
The following statements were contained in a letter from DCS Ruaraidh Nicolson to me on19 September 2008 and I have added some comments as footnotes:
‘My officers have assessed your correspondence and I can now confirm that a full investigation was undertaken in relation to your complaint in 1993.’
‘As a result of that investigation a report of the circumstances was submitted to the Procurator Fiscal at Kilmarnock in 1994 and at a subsequent meeting with the Procurator Fiscal direction was given that no further action should be taken.’     
‘In 2004 DI Robertson again carried out enquiries into the ‘new evidence’ identified by you. As a result of that it was established that all the evidential factors you identified were known to the Police and the Procurator Fiscal in 1994 and informed the decision by the Procurator Fiscal not to progress the enquiry.’     
’In conclusion Strathclyde Police has conducted a full and thorough investigation into your allegations when reported in 1993 and also when the enquiry was reviewed at your instigation in 2004.’     
 
The original footnotes in this extract contained the following points, again reproduced here in italics for convenience:
 
As detailed herein the available evidence indicates that the police carried out no independent investigation in 1993.
 
Why did the police not challenge the Scottish Enterprise report which obviously concealed material evidence? Why did the police send a copy of that report to the government without correcting or commenting on its many defects?
 
On 11 June 2010 I received an email from Strathclyde Police with an attached letter dated 30 April 2010 in response to a complaint I had raised against Detective Inspector Graham Cowley on 1 April 2010.
That response from Strathclyde Police indicated that I was correct to state that Strathclyde Police had informed me that the 1993 police report had already been destroyed around 2000. 
Therefore Detective Chief Superintendent Ruaraidh Nicolson could not have had the 1993 police report available to him in 2008 to enable him to assert with any validity that Strathclyde Police had conducted a full and thorough investigation into my allegations when reported in 1993.
My letter of complaint to Strathclyde Police dated 23 September 2008 had included the following point in that regard:
‘Mr Nicolson falsely states that Strathclyde Police conducted a full and thorough investigation into my allegations when reported in 1993.’
Again, as detailed herein the available evidence indicates that the police carried out no independent investigation in 1993.
 
Evidence to which reference is made in section 4 above suggests that the Procurator Fiscal had not been adequately informed in this case even by 1999.
 
The Procurator Fiscal’s Office, Kilmarnock, informed me by letter on 6 February 2003, in response to my request for information dated 5 January 2003, that they did not appear to have received a report relative to this case.
 
In a letter to me dated 20 February 2004 Strathclyde Police’s DI Robertson had undertaken to contact me to arrange a further meeting at my home address, to go over certain points and to arrange copies of documents.
Although I reminded Strathclyde Police of this by telephone and in writing on 21 July 2004 no such contact was ever made and no copies of documents were taken.
The investigation that was live at that time was abruptly terminated in 2005 and was clearly defective as a result of this and other failures.
By mid 2003 the police had already asked the Lord Advocate to raise a petition for me to be categorised as a vexatious litigant.  Any notion that the police intended reviewing the evidence properly in 2004 in those circumstances is not credible.
 
And again, the police already informed me that the 1993 police report had already been destroyed around 2000. 
 
Therefore Detective Chief Superintendent Ruaraidh Nicolson could not have had the 1993 police report available to him in 2008 to enable him to assert with any validity that it was established that all the evidential factors I had identified were known to the Police and the Procurator Fiscal in 1994 and informed the decision by the Procurator Fiscal not to progress the enquiry.    
 
[25]     I provided information and evidence proving beyond reasonable doubt that the reason why ACC Nicolson did not respond was not primarily because Strathclyde Police had received the PCCS recommendation that they need not respond to me but rather because he wanted to avoid consideration of his earlier involvement in this case which he knows would not stand up to any scrutiny.
 
In my complaint to the SPA about ACC Nicolson’s alleged misconduct I included the following relevant points, reproduced here in italics for convenience:
 
A reasonable suspicion could arise in the mind of an independent observer that Assistant Chief Constable Nicolson deliberately refused to ensure that I was contacted because of his earlier involvement in events described in the letters to the Chief Constable mentioned above.
 
I will shortly provide supporting evidence by post and in subsequent emails.
Some background information is provided below in 8 sections, including references to Mr Nicolson’s earlier involvement along with significant information relating to his earlier involvement.
The contents of the letters to the Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police dated 1 July 2012 and 9 July 2012, including the attachments, the notification to me in the email dated 12 July 2012, including the attachment, and Mr Nicolson’s consequent inaction, especially in the context of the background information provided, indicate that Assistant Chief Constable Nicolson has not acted properly.
     
[26]     Ms Lindsey McNeill, Director of Governance and Assurance for the Scottish Police Authority, is currently under investigation for alleged misconduct including misconduct in relation to this issue.
 
Relevant extracts from my complaint against Ms McNeill, submitted on 11 August 2016, are quoted below:
 
‘On 21 December 2015 Ms Lindsey McNeill sent an email to me in response to an email I had sent to Ms Moi Ali on 7 December 2015.’
‘Ms McNeill’s communication included the following statements, reproduced here in italics for convenience:’
 
‘‘If you had concerns about how the former PCCS handled your complaint, you will have been advised to escalate your concerns to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO).  I am not sure if you were able to use this avenue at the time, but unfortunately I can only advise that there is nothing that SPA can do to assist you in this matter, and it does not feature in the workstreams as directed by the Cabinet Secretary.’’
 
‘Conspicuous by its absence is any guidance as to what the SPA could handle as a complaint in my case, which would include any allegations of misconduct against a senior police officer. Ms McNeill’s advice to me that there was nothing that the SPA could do to assist me in this matter completely omitted any mention of that possibility.’
‘In fact my case did involve allegations against a senior police officer, ACC Nicolson, and I subsequently discovered the SPA’s responsibility to handle such complaints without the assistance of Ms McNeill.’
‘Firstly, therefore, Ms McNeill’s intervention was misleading.’
‘Why did Ms McNeill fail to mention this important detail about the SPA’s remit in my case?’
‘Thereafter Ms Ali informed me that Ms McNeill should not have responded to me at all.’
‘Secondly, therefore, Ms McNeill’s intervention was irregular and improper.’
‘Why did Ms McNeill mislead me in an irregular and improper intervention?’
‘A reasonable suspicion of impropriety could arise in the mind of an independent observer because Ms McNeill was previously involved in this case when she was Head of Corporate Services for the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland.’
‘Thirdly, therefore, Ms McNeill acted unfairly because she knew that she was not sufficiently impartial to respond to me on behalf of the SPA. My civil rights to fair treatment under the terms of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights were not respected.’ 
‘Ms McNeill’s previous involvement has particular relevance since she was instrumental in suppressing my concerns about the basis for the PCCS’s recommendation to Strathclyde Police having been fabricated, as the evidence that was available to her plainly confirmed.’
‘Ms McNeill included the following statements in her letter to me dated 5 April 2011 on behalf of the PCCS, reproduced here in italics for convenience:’
 
‘‘You continue to dispute the number of complaint letters which you had sent to Strathclyde Police, and you refuse to acknowledge the explanation previously given. To this end I am unable to comment any further.’’
 
‘In response my letter dated 6 April 2011 contained the following points, reproduced here in italics for convenience:’
 
‘‘Most importantly however, you have completely failed to address my fundamental point about the PCCS misrepresenting as letters of complaint 82 of my letters to Strathclyde Police when in fact only 8 of these were letters of complaint and of those 2 were soon withdrawn in any event. You have done so in the full knowledge that this position was based on a pack of lies that was very damaging to my professional reputation.’’
 
‘‘This is an issue that can easily be settled with reference to the 82 letters in question. I have copies and so do you. The explanation provided by the PCCS that this number of letters of complaint was computed by counting the letters that I had sent to Strathclyde Police is erroneous and unacceptable for the rather obvious reason explained in the following terms in my letter to the PCCS dated 26 March 2011:’’
 
 
‘‘‘But clearly, just counting the letters I had sent to Strathclyde Police would not provide the true number of letters of complaint I had sent to Strathclyde Police unless the letters that you counted were all letters of complaint. You know that they were not all letters of complaint. Less than a tenth were letters of complaint.’’’
 
‘A reasonable suspicion arises that Ms McNeill acted corruptly in order to avoid any scrutiny of the PCCS’s former involvement in this case, including Ms McNeill’s involvement in upholding the unjustified and very harmful PCCS recommendation about me to Strathclyde Police.’
‘Mr Stuart Milne later relied upon the PCCS’s recommendation to reject my complaint against ACC Nicolson but disclosures from the SPA do not contain any reference to the officer concerned citing that recommendation in his defence for the whole duration of the handling of the complaint.’
‘Where did that angle come from? A reasonable suspicion arises that Ms McNeill may have intervened again this time in order to direct Mr Milne to adopt that position after he had failed to come up with a more plausible defence on behalf of ACC Nicolson.’
‘Relying on the PCCS’s recommendation in the circumstances was clearly an untenable position in view of the necessity thereby of holding a direction from the Chief Constable as automatically superseded by that recommendation.’
‘This is especially relevant because prior to Ms McNeill’s intervention I had informed the SPA that there was evidence in this case that had not been adequately considered or not considered at all by the Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police or by ACC Nicolson.’
‘The Chief Constable’s direction to ACC Nicolson related to the consideration of such evidence, as perusal of the contents of the contemporaneous correspondence would confirm, which put the matter beyond the realm of a police complaint.’ 
‘Therefore in any event my communications in which reference was made to such evidence did not fall within the category of police complaints that the PCCS had recommended Strathclyde Police to disregard.’
‘The published document on SPA complaints handling procedures includes the following relevant points, reproduced here in italics for convenience:’
 
 
‘‘CORRUPT PRACTICE’’
 
‘‘There is no authoritative single legal definition of the word “corruption”; however included under this allegation should be any allegation that a staff member of the SPA or senior officer has abused their position as a member of the SPA or police service for personal gain or for gain for others.’’
 
‘‘The motive for gain is irrelevant and need not be for financial advantage.’’
 
‘Consequently, I want to raise a formal complaint against Ms McNeill for her misleading, irregular, improper and unfair conduct, including a complaint of corrupt practice.’
  

No comments: